|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 568 Records
-
2003 (10) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on account of an act of the party persuading the Court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage which it would not have otherwise corned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the Court and the set of such party?
-
2003 (10) TMI 637 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed
-
2003 (10) TMI 636 - SUPREME COURT
Whether dispute regarding sharing of standby charges for providing 275 MVA standby facility to BSES by TPC is not an issue of tariff, but is a dispute relating to sharing or apportionment of the charges being paid by TPC to MSEB for providing the former with a standby facility of 550 MVA and, therefore, it does not come within the purview of the Commission under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act?
-
2003 (10) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the fee under Rule 3 is not a fee at all levied for the purpose of additional regulation or for any service rendered but is really a tax in the garb of a fee?
-
2003 (10) TMI 634 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the objection as regard the age of the respondent was made in writing before the returning officer but the same was rejected without giving an opportunity of hearing to him, purported to be on the ground that such objection had been filed in relation to one Rakesh Kumar alias Samrat Choudhary while the nomination paper had been filed by Rakesh Ku.?
-
2003 (10) TMI 633 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... orted in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal) (Beekay Engineering and Casting Ltd. v. Commissioner). While dismissing review petition, the Supreme Court passed the following order - “Delay condoned. We have gone through the review petition and the connected records. We do not find any merit therein. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.”
-
2003 (10) TMI 632 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code apply to delay in instituting the prosecution or to delay in taking cognizance?
Held that:- If this interpretation of Chapter XXXVI of the Code is to be applied to the facts of the case then we notice that the offence was detected on 5.3.1999 and the complaint was filed before the court on 3.3.2000 which was well within the period of limitation, therefore, the fact that the court took cognizance of the offence only on 25.3.1999 about 25 days after it was filed, would not make the complaint barred by limitation.
Thus it is not necessary to go to the next question argued on behalf of the appellants that the court below was in error in invoking Section 473 of the Code for extending the period of limitation. Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 631 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rised to get and procure the loan of any kind from the financial institutions or bank for the firm. In our opinion the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee is also contrary to the object of the section 4A which is for encouraging setting up of the new industries. Hence only that interpretation should be taken which advances the object of the provision and not which defeats the same as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Industrial Coal Enterprises 1999 114 STC 365 (SC) 1999 UPTC 250. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed, the order of the Divisional Level Committee dated June 5, 1992 rejecting the review application for grant of eligibility certificate is set aside and a direction is issued to the Divisional Level Committee to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner under section 4A forthwith. Till the issuance of the eligibility certificate realisation of tax for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 shall remain stayed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 630 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t firm but in the name of its employer will not make any difference and unless there is an intention to evade tax, no penalty can be imposed. Therefore, even if the crane was being imported against form 31 of hirer, M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd., there was nothing wrong and was not against the provision of section 28-A. Thus seizure order as well as penalty order are bad in law. Further, no case of an attempt to evade the tax has been made out. All the necessary documents relating to crane was voluntarily submitted at the check-post and hence on the fact, no possible inference of attempt to evade the tax can be made. It is a settled principle of law that penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) can be levied only when there was an attempt to evade tax. For the reasons mentioned above the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order of Tribunal is set aside and penalty levied under section 15-A(1)(o) is quashed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 629 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1983 54 STC 195 and the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Amritsar Oil Works reported in 1989 UPTC 1187. Learned standing counsel is not able to assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal and is not able to make out any case that on the facts and circumstances, the amount deducted towards the freight in the bill form part of turnover. I do not find any error in the view of Tribunal. 7.. So far as books of account relating to the assessment year 1987-88 is concerned, Tribunal found that adverse inference drawn from chalan No. 238, on the ground, that it differs in writing is erroneous. Tribunal observed that in respect of the chalan No. 238, bill No. 213 dated June 25, 1987 was issued and the necessary entry was made in the books of account. Finding of Tribunal are findings of fact and needs no interference. 8.. In the result, all the revisions fails and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 628 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssued so as to enable the owner or driver or person-in-charge of such vehicle to deliver the same to the officer-incharge of the last check-post. Refusal to give such transit pass at the same time imposing tax liability merely on suspicion as is now raised in exhibit P4 is unwarranted. 8.. Therefore, I direct respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to give necessary instruction to all sales tax check-post to comply with section 30B and issue transit pass, so as to enable the owner, driver or personin-charge of the vehicle passing through the State to another to produce the same before the last check-post. 9.. Though statement is filed in this case on behalf of the first respondent which only reiterates exhibit P4, the authority shall also consider the request for refund of the amount already paid and dispose of the same in accordance with law. A copy of this judgment be issued to the respondents for compliance. Original petitions are disposed of as above. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (10) TMI 627 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ully recovered abandon that course and take recourse to the other method. It cannot be said that by the assessing authority proceeding in that way the assessee, in any manner, has been prejudiced. The duty of the assessee is to satisfy the demand. It cannot be said that the assessee, in the instant case, after receiving the demand notice, as referred to above, had altered his position and thereby the action taken now works to his detriment. His liability, in no way, can be said to have been diminished or increased by the conduct of the assessing authority. 9.. The petitioners next submission is that the family members of the managing director are being harassed by the respondent. I am unable to accept this submission. No factual foundation is laid to accept this submission. The petitioner is the managing director and the petition is not filed in his personal capacity. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted. 10.. No grounds. Petitions stand rejected. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 626 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the employer should be denied the salary for the period he was kept under suspension preceding the removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement?
Whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date or his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement?
Held that:- The appellate authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get back wages for the period he was out of service. It may be noticed that the respondent was removed from service without any enquiry and he was not even given show causes notice prior to his dismissal from service. There was fault on the part of the employer in not following the principle of natural justice. These relevant facts were considered and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench ordered the payment of back wages. We do not think this is a fit case where the Fundamental Rule 54 could have been invoked by the authorities. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 625 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... purchases for Rs. 74,518. Therefore, thus, the benefit of exemption on the amount of Rs. 74,518 should be allowed. S/Sri Hony Packers, Saharanpur Form No. 117312 for Rs. 7,730 The exemption has been disallowed on the ground that on investigation, it is found that the form was issued for Rs. 6,495 and in respect of Rs. 7,730 no form III-B was issued. The perusal of the form show that the amount of Rs. 7,730 is mentioned in the form. It is not the case that the applicant has added the amount in the form. Therefore, form being genuine, the claim of exemption cannot be denied. The party, who has issued the form has not disputed about the purchases for Rs. 7,730. Therefore, thus, the benefit of exemption on the amount of Rs. 7,730 should be allowed. 17.. In the result, revision is allowed and the order of Tribunal dated November 3, 1990 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the light of observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 624 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondents cannot deny the concessions extended through G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996. 12.. We also examined the pros and cons as to whether these matters could be sent back to the authorities with a specific direction to give a finding on the basis of material available. Having regard to the fact that earlier on two occasions the authorities failed to examine the issue as directed by this Court, but passed the impugned orders in a routine fashion, we think no useful purpose would be served in sending the matters once again to the very same authorities who are to decide the issue. 13.. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the petitioner-units, which are involved in the making of the packaged drinking water, are also entitled for sales tax exemptions as per the G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 14.. That rule nisi in all the writ petitions has been made absolute as above. Writ Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 623 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hether the dealers are entitled to claim the exemption under the CST Act. It is in that context the Division Bench of this Court examined the same and incidentally the G.O. Ms. No. 377 was also examined, but not from the point of view whether the said G.O. extends the benefit to all or only the flour mills dealing in sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products though process of grinding is not undertaken. The meaning for the word flour as given in the Oxford Dictionary is a meal or powder obtained by grinding and usually sifting cereals, esp. wheat. In other words, the process of grinding is an important facet of flour mills and therefore, the appellants cannot seek the benefit. Without there being the process of grinding, they shall not be entitled for the benefit under the G.O. Ms. No. 377. For the above said reasons we find no justification in the appeals and both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. However in the circumstances no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 622 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s contention has no foundation in the pleadings. None of the petitioners have pleaded about the waiver in their writ petitions. Inasmuch as this is a pure question of fact, in the absence of any pleading in this respect, resulting in a handicap for the other side to meet the same, is not permissible to allow the petitioners to take this contention. Even otherwise also, the very reason behind the withdrawal of the exemption granted is for augmentation of the financial resources in the public interest. Moreover, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 44 STC 42 AIR 1979 SC 621, the waiver is a question of fact and it must be properly pleaded and proved and no plea of waiver can be allowed to be raised unless it is pleaded and the factual foundation for it is laid in the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this batch of writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 621 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction. This plea can be taken before the assessing authority itself. As observed by the apex Court in Union of India v. Hindalco Industries 2004 135 STC 281 AIR 2003 SCW 2062 it is not proper for this Court to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution either at the stage of show cause notice or even at the stage of assessment proceedings. In view of the observations made by the apex Court in Union of India v. Hindalco Industries case 2004 135 STC 281 AIR 2003 SCW 2062, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to raise all the pleas before the assessing authority and we have no doubt that the assessing authority will take into account and consider all the pleas raised before it and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner will have the statutory remedies available to it thereafter if the occasion so arises. The writ petition stands disposed of as above. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (10) TMI 620 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioners to the foreign going airlines is a local sale within the meaning of the BST Act and not a sale covered under section 5(1) of the CST Act, the petition fails and accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought continuation of the interim order which is already operating in favour of the petitioners right from the inception of the petition, so as to enable them to approach the apex Court. This request made by learned counsel for the petitioners is opposed by Mrs. Kajle, appearing for the revenue. However, considering the issues involved and the complexity thereof and taking into account the fact that the stay has been operating right from the inception of the petition, we see no difficulty in extending the period of interim relief for further period of twelve weeks from today. Accordingly, the interim relief is extended for twelve weeks from today. C.C. expedited. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 619 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lour in a colour world computerised automatic machine a new commercial commodity is manufactured in the form of coloured paint having all the characteristic of paint which was not in existence in the base material. These findings are finding of fact based on material and I do not find any reason to differ and same is accordingly upheld. Learned counsel for the applicant has not placed any scientific analytical report or any other evidence to prove that the base material had all the characteristic of paint. The explanation given in the written submission explaining why in the packing of base material, the words not to be sold without tinting and base material for paints , final product after addition of colourant were used are not convincing to establish that base material was final product in the form of paint having all the characteristic of paint. 17.. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision of the applicant. It is accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed.
........
|
