|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessing officer for issuing a notice under section 46A to forfeit the excess collection because petitioner had voluntarily paid the amount and did not claim refund of it. In such circumstances, we find there is nothing wrong in the action of the Tribunal in treating the order of the officer as one issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 46A of the Act especially when the officer has such power and the order is consistent with it. We find there is nothing illegal or irregular in the assessment demanding excess tax collected and paid which is in exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the officer under section 46A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and we, therefore, sustain the order of the Tribunal upholding it. The buyers from whom the petitioner has collected excess tax are free to approach the officer concerned in terms of rule 31D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules for refund. This tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 825 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tes, cement, cement wares, building materials, etc. These goods are entered in the registration certificates as the goods dealt in and not as raw materials. Bajri is included as one of the building materials. A reference has also been made to the notification dated September 9, 1971, whereby there is an exemption from the tax on sale of building material. Thus, the Bajri is also being a building material, the dealers registered under the Act are exempted from payment of sales tax. Therefore, the collection of tax from the registered dealers of building materials in the auctioned area by the contractor-petitioner would be unauthorised. In view of this, we do not find any illegality in the notice and the subsequent communication of the respondent-Commercial Taxes Officer, Sumerpur. There is no illegality in the order of Tribunal. 6.. Consequently, we do not find merit in this writ petition. The same fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 824 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... having a circulation of more than 15,000 copies at the relevant time and as such it comes under the definition of medium newspaper which can import newsprint reels and for that purpose a copy of the certificate granted by the concerned authority was also furnished. It is therefore, submitted that in view of the provisions of sub-clause (3) of rule 13 read with section 8(3)(v) of the Act, such sale was exempted from tax. 14. In view of the findings that the petitioner served as an importing agent only and the goods were imported into Assam and was stored for on behalf of the Assam Tribune and as such the petitioner is not liable to pay tax and the subsequent order imposing penalty is quashed. 15.. In view of the above, the impugned order as well as the order of the revisional authority is quashed. The goods have already been released in view of the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. The bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner stands released. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 823 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spect of transactions falling under the Central Sales Tax Act. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the provisions of rule 43(3), 43(6)(c) and 43(7)(j)(iii) of the Rules in so far as the requirement to obtain a despatch note in form 35 and for production thereof at the check-posts are concerned, are clearly beyond the powers of the State authority and are hereby declared as ultra vires. 11.. As the provisions of rule 43(3), 43(6)(c) and 43(7)(j)(iii) of the Rules have been found to be beyond the powers of the rule-making authority and have been adjudged and declared as ultra vires, it will not be necessary to go into the second question raised on behalf of the writ petitioners namely, the provisions of the aforesaid Rules are ultra vires the provisions of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution. 12.. For the aforesaid reasons, this batch of writ petitions will have to be allowed which I do accordingly. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 822 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioners appears to be correct and acceptable because the very object of entry tax itself as stated in the preamble, is to prevent evasion of sales tax. Going by the object of the statute, entries in the Schedule to the Entry Tax Act and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act should be given the same meaning. Therefore, I feel that the contention of the petitioners is correct and the respondents have no right to demand entry tax in respect of dental chair brought by them. The original petitions are accordingly allowed. I declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay entry tax or penalty for the import of Dental chair and the assessing officer has no right to demand the same. The impugned proceedings in all the original petitions at whatever stage shall stand cancelled and if at all any appeals are filed, it is made clear that they are unnecessary as the original proceedings stand hereby quashed. Order on C.M.P. No. 28 of 2002 in O.P. No. 28 of 2002 dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 821 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It is common case of the parties that the petitioner is an exempted unit and is in possession of eligibility certificate. Merely because the exemption certificate was issued on June 25, 2002 would not mean that the petitioner would be liable to pay the amount as assessed for those two years. The exemption certificate, no doubt, was issued on June 25, 2002 but the same relates to the period for which the petitioner has been granted exemption, namely, from March 17, 1997 to March 16, 2004. In view of the exemption granted to the petitioner, we are clearly of the view that it is not required to pay the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and the amounts as assessed would be adjusted against the exemption limit. 4.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to recover the amount from the petitioner as assessed for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 820 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pany informing the latter that the reference made under section 15 of the aforesaid Act stands registered. It is obvious that an inquiry is pending before the BIFR under section 16 of the aforesaid Act. In view of the bar contained in section 22 of the Act, the respondents cannot recover the assessed amount without prior permission of the BIFR. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to recover the assessed amount from the petitioner-company without prior permission of the BIFR. This direction will operate till such time the inquiry is pending under section 16 of the Act and in case any scheme is framed under section 17 of the Act or is under preparation till such time the scheme is prepared or sanctioned or implemented and even during the pendency of an appeal before the competent authority under section 25 of the Act. The impugned order annexure P-3 stands modified accordingly. No costs. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 819 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the Board and the Collectors may issue written instructions providing for any supplemental matters arising out of these Rules. Under this rule the only instruction that the Board can issue is that relating to administrative matters otherwise that rule will have to be considered as ultra vires section 35 of the Act. 8.. As stated above, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not authorised to issue any direction to the assessing authority in the matter of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the directions contained in annexure 1 are declared ultra vires and are quashed and the consequential notice issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid direction is also quashed. 9.. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. The assessing authority may proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10.. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Writ application allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 818 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been specified in any of the categories in Schedule A . In this view of the matter, category VII which is residuary category and fixes rate of tax in regard to goods not specified elsewhere shall come into play. In category VII rate of tax applicable in regard to goods not specified elsewhere is 8 per cent. Therefore, mobil oil and lubricants not having been specified elsewhere are liable to tax at the rate of 8 per cent only. Respondents are, therefore, not justified in requiring the petitioners to deposit tax at the rate of 20 per cent under category X because, as already observed, item No. 4 in category X (mobil oil and lubricants) has not been enforced so far. 5.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated November 21, 2001 issued to M/s. Castrol India Limited, Ludhiana, quashed. Similar notices issued to other petitioners are also quashed for the same reasons. There is no order as to costs. Petitions allowed. See 2001 122 STC Statutes 78.
-
2002 (9) TMI 817 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o understand how the Revenue can take such a stand and state that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has wrongly issued the circular when the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is himself one of the appellants in the State appeals. It does not lie in the mouth of the State to say that they have issued the circular wrongly which has been in force since 1983 without any demur. 62.. The Supreme Court in 1998 111 STC 254 (SC) (1997) 94 ELT 460 (SC) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries pronounced that the Revenue cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. It is a different matter that an assessee can contest the validity or legality of a departmental instruction. But, that right cannot be conceded to the department, more so when others have acted according to such instructions. 63.. Accordingly, writ appeals preferred by the State are dismissed. 64.. No order as to costs. Appeals by State dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 816 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Authority of India Limited reported in 2000 118 STC 297 (SC). 55.. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of Orissa reported in 2000 118 STC 297 (SC) and for the reasons stated therein we have no alternative except to strike down section 19-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as it presently stands, since the section ought to have been precisely drafted to make it clear that no advance tax was levied on that part of the amount credited or paid related to inter-State sales, outside sales or sales in the course or import. 56.. Accordingly, writ appeals are allowed and the judgment under appeals are set aside and section 19-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as it presently stands in struck down as being beyond the purview of the State Legislature. 57.. It is made clear that any advance tax collected and paid to the Sales Tax Department under section 19-A shall be adjusted in the future assessments of the assessee. Appeals allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 815 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and it is not covered by entry 191 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. It is specifically stated in that case that M-seal is used as blocking agent to block the leakage of liquids and it is covered by entry general goods . In that case various decisions have been relied on by the Advocate-General to show that M-seal is a leak preventing material and not used as an adhesive. In this case, the leak preventing property of the polystik compound is only incidental, the essential one being adhesive. Therefore, we feel the decision has no application. Since, on facts there is no controversy that the item is used as an adhesive to fix rainguard on the standing trees, we are unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal. We set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and restore the assessment of the item as adhesive under item 3 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revisions are allowed as above. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 814 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ircumstances and should have remanded the matter for the said purpose. However, they have not chosen to do so. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that an opportunity must be given to the assessee to cure the defects in the declarations and/or to produce fresh declarations. Thereafter it is for the assessing authority to verify as to whether the particulars of payments specified in the declarations are correct. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities including the Tribunal on this point and remit the matter to the assessing authority for the said purpose. If the assessee does not produce the corrected declarations or fresh declarations within one month from the date of receipt of notice from the assessing authority, the assessment order will stand confirmed. These tax revision cases are allowed and remanded to the assessing authority solely for the said purpose. Order on C.M.P. No. 4189 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 296 of 2000 dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 813 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of the officer detaining the goods and in case the consignor or the consignee is not registered under the Act, then on furnishing a security in the form of cash or bank guarantee or crossed bank draft, which shall be thirty per cent of the value of the goods, rounded up to the nearest hundred. 5.. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the detaining officer is duty bound to release the goods when the registered dealer furnishes a surety bond. The detaining officer cannot compel a registered dealer to furnish bank guarantee or cash security. Such securities are only to be obtained from persons who are not registered as dealers under the Act. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated August 14, 2002 and August 21, 2002 (annexures P-3 and P4 with the writ petition) quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to release the goods forthwith. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 812 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioner to file the appeal and obtain appropriate order from the appellate authority. 2.. For the view that we are taking, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 3.. Since a copy of the order imposing penalty has been supplied to the petitioner only on September 18, 2002 let him file an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and make a prayer for stay which will be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The respondents are restrained from encashing the bank guarantee till the stay application, if filed by the petitioner along with appeal within the period of limitation, is decided by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. In case no appeal is filed, it will be open to the respondents to encash the bank guarantee after the expiry of the limitation for filing the appeal. 4.. The writ petition stands disposed of as above. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of requisite charges. Petition disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 811 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... despite administrative directions given by the Commissioner in 1985. Yet, the clarification given by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes vide Letter No. CT 8-20/ 06/169(A) dated June 28, 1989 is mitigating of the alleged act. The certificates were issued bona fide in exercise of quasi-judicial powers long after the clarification given by the Deputy Commissioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner ought not to have been proceeded against and penalised as has been done in the instant case. The Administrative Tribunal in their judgment under challenge fell into error in interpreting the provisions of clauses (5) and (10) of section 2 of the Act of 1993 and hence, the judgment warrants reversal. 17.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated July 26, 2000 passed by the Assam Administrative Tribunal in Case No. 71ATA/98 stands reversed and the penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority are hereby quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 810 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inion that the certificate of registration is to be granted for the applicant. When once such a certificate is granted, it clothes the person with certain privileges...............But, such cancellation of registration can take effect only from the date when the order was so passed. It cannot have any retrospective effect. It cannot in any manner affect the past transactions bona fide entered into by persons, who relying on the certificate of registration, entered into business deals and arranged their affairs. 7.. We are of the view that the same reasoning can be applied here to the eligibility certificate granted. During the pendency of the eligibility certificate, the assessee made use of it and he did not collect tax. In that event, he cannot be compelled to pay tax on the ground that the certificate was subsequently cancelled. Thus, we are of the view that the majority order of the Tribunal is to be upheld. Accordingly tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 809 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... gives ample power to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue clarification on an application by a registered dealer. 12.. While considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of the learned Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Lr. No. K. Dis. Acts.Cell-I/9534/02 dated June 4, 2002 is perfectly justified and it is in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no valid reason to interfere with the said order passed by the first respondent. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13.. In the result, O.P. No. 681 of 2002 is dismissed. As the main original petition is dismissed, the original miscellaneous petition does not survive. 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 4th day of September, 2002. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 808 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 20 of the Act after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned notices, as contained in annexures 1 series, are quashed. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion as to the rate of tax, which is to be paid by the petitioner. It is for the assessing authority to consider the matter in terms of the provisions of the Act and determine the rate of tax in terms of the statutory provisions/instructions by taking independent decision without being influenced by the direction issued by the Commissioner, who, as we have held, has no authority in law to issue the said direction. It is also made clear that in case the assessing authority on final assessment finds that the information furnished in the returns were incorrect then the authority may take actions as provided under the Act. 12.. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned notices, as contained in annexures 1 series, are quashed. Writ application allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 84. The substance of the seizure of goods made in the present case was that the transit pass in form No. XXXIV as well as the documents produced in respect thereof were false and incorrect not relatable to the consignor and consignee and showing large number of discrepancies as indicated as observations of paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of order of learned Tribunal referred above. 16.. There was no lack of power to seize the goods in question by trade tax authorities in view of the facts found by him upon inquiry. The seizure of the goods in question as well as the demand for security as indicated in the impugned order of learned Tribunal was also in the facts and circumstances of the present case fully authorised by law. 17.. In the light of the above observation I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of Tribunal, therefore, both the revisions are dismissed and the questions of law are dealt with accordingly. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
