|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 568 Records
-
2003 (10) TMI 618 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red and, therefore, long after its benefit had been availed by the appellant or (sic not) at all. The view taken by the High Court in the judgment to which we have referred to is correct, and is borne out by the decisions of this Court aforementioned. The committee without even noticing the law on the subject has chosen not to consider the same. There is no justification in the case on hand, to review an amended certificate after several long years. This judgment supports the petitioner. 12.. I have also gone through the original file made available to me. I do not find any factual errors in terms of the division Bench judgment not warranting my interference. 13.. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Any payment made by the petitioner is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner by the State in accordance with law. 14.. I would have imposed costs but for the factum of drought situation faced by the State. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 617 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to tax under the provisions of the Act (as found in this case by the Sales Tax Tribunal), it could not be said that the person transporting the goods was attempting to evade the tax due under the Act. This is especially so when as laid down in the Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd.s case 2001 123 STC 272 (P and H) (2001) 17 PHT 418 the presumption can be rebutted by the person concerned by producing evidence to prove that no attempt had been made to evade payment of tax. Thus, the law laid down by this Court in Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd.s case 2001 123 STC 272 (2001) 17 PHT 418 would have no application to the facts of the present case. 8.. No other point has been urged before us. 9.. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed, the order dated January 14, 2002 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside and the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner is quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 616 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , once he had passed an order for assessment. In this case, inasmuch as an assessment order has already been passed on March 24, 2000, the third respondent has no power or right or jurisdiction to pass another order dated May 31, 2000. It should have been done only under section 55 of the TNGST Act. Therefore, mentioning of provisions of section 9(2) in that order dated May 31, 2000 is not correct and it has to be ignored. Therefore, by the order dated May 31, 2000, only that portion of the turnover which enables for exemption is modified. Therefore, with respect to Rs. 88,25,405, the original order dated March 24, 2000 stands. Merely because that is also referred to in the order of the third respondent, it does not make the order as a reassessment or revision of the assessment. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. 16.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 57283 of 2002 is closed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 615 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... passed in special civil application, no order on civil application. It stands disposed of accordingly. 25.. For removal of doubt, it is once again made clear that the petitioner is directed to submit all the details which are necessary for the purpose of completion of assessments from 1996 onwards within one month from today. The respondent-corporation is directed to complete the assessment on the basis of the decision taken by this Court in the present judgment within one month from the date of receipt of the details from the petitioner. After completion of the assessment, the respondent-corporation is directed to refund the excess amount collected within three months from the date of the completion of the assessment along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the respective date of payment till the date of refund. The petitioner is directed to furnish undertaking as per this Courts direction made hereinabove, within three weeks from today. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 614 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cerned who retained the books, accounts, etc., beyond the mandatory period of sixty days cannot be condoned especially when he did not bother to return the books in spite of issuance of notices by the petitioner. Furthermore, as referred to above, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had refused to issue receipt for the return of the documents or that the petitioner was ever called upon to come and collect the books, accounts, etc. 8.. For the reasons recorded above, all the above mentioned four petitions are allowed with costs and respondents are directed to return the books, accounts, etc., which were seized from the petitioners, to them forthwith. The costs are assessed at Rs. 2,500 in each of the four cases, i.e., totalling Rs. 10,000. It is directed that costs shall be paid by the officer responsible for the non-return of the books, accounts, etc., personally from his own pocket and these costs shall not be a burden on the State exchequer. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 613 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nif v. State of Bihar). In determining the infringement of the right guaranteed under article 19(1), the nature of right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, enter into judicial verdict (AIR 1981 SC 873, Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 1323, Treveli v. State of Gujarat (sic) and Harakchand Rattanchand Banthia v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1453). In the case on hand, restriction, if at all, is in public interest and that, therefore, the judgment instead of supporting the petitioner supports the State. 11.. In the result, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in this writ petition. Petition is rejected. Respondents are directed to decide the case on merits in the light of this judgment and pass orders accordingly in accordance with law. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 612 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... matter is remitted to the second respondent to redo the assessment in accordance with law, after verifying the various purchases made by the petitioner as to the sufferance of sales tax at the earlier stage, consider the clarification/ circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as required under section 28-A(3) of the Act, the relevant appellate order and other decisions relied on in the present original petition. If the assessing authority purports to deviate from section 28-A clarification in force, being a quasi-judicial authority, he has to state reasons for such deviation. 4.. In fine, the Original petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, the stay petition in O.M.P.No. 651 of 2003 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 29th day of October, 2003. Petition disposed accordingly.
-
2003 (10) TMI 611 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me exigible to tax. The power to initiate a proceeding to determine escaped turnover is vested on the assessing officer and therefore, recourse to the impugned notice and the power under section 36(1) of the Act of 1993 on basis thereof cannot be held to be justified. The argument advanced on behalf of the State that the present challenge is premature has to be negatived inasmuch as submission to the jurisdiction of an authority would only be justified if the authority concerned is legally empowered to initiate and conduct the proceeding in question. As the revisional authority has been held to be not competent to issue the impugned notice, this Court sees no justifiable ground to require the assessee to appear before the authority on the basis of the impugned notice which has already been held to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. 9.. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the notice dated September 23, 1993 stands quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the right of the auction purchaser could have been set at naught by reason of a consent order passed in his absence?
Held that:- The consent order, as is well-known, is an agreement between the parties with the seal of the Court superadded to it. The appellant herein in the Review Application categorically stated that the parties to the appeal had suppressed the auction sale as also the confirmation thereof. The effect of the events appearing subsequent to the filing of First Appeal resulting in creation of a third party right was bound to be taken into consideration by the High Court. A third party right cannot be set at naught by consent. The High Court, therefore, was required to consider the contention of the appellant in their proper perspective. The High Court, in our opinion, was obligated to address itself on these questions for the purpose of reviewing its order.
It is true that pursuant to or in furtherance of the consent order, the respondents had deposited the amount and the State Government has appropriated the same. The legal, issues as regard the effect of commission of fraud on court vis-a-vis the conduct of the parties are still at large. The High Court was therefore, required to adjust the equities between ,the parties. The Bank cannot also unjustly enrich itself insofar as; while enforcing a preliminary decree of mortgage, it cannot take also recourse to recover the decretal amount from the judgment-debtors at the expense of the auction purchaser.
Appeal allowed. The matters may now be considered afresh by the High Court in the light of the observations made hereinbefore.
-
2003 (10) TMI 609 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tiral benefits and pension of the deceased, and these other persons will include only the legally married wife and her children. 11. The permission given by competent authority, cannot grant any legal status to the second marriage which was void, being violative of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The permission may have protected the deceased employee from the charge of misconduct, but that by itself will not make his second marriage to Kaushalya Devi a valid marriage, or include her and her children in the definition of the word family . 12. A right flowing under the statutory rules cannot be curtailed or enlarged by settlement or compromise between the beneficiaries. The compromise entered into between Smt. Satina Devi and Kaushalya Devi is also a void document, which cannot be the basis of claim for compassionate appointment. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 608 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... uments. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. In view of the facts narrated by both the sides, we are of the view that the matter should go back once again to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after taking into consideration the documents, which were produced by the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal in their Misc. Application No. 635/98. Accordingly, we direct appellants to submit the said misc. application alongwith all the documents, which were produced before the Appellate Tribunal within one month of receipt of this order. The Commissioner, thereafter, will re-adjudicate the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants in accordance with law. We also mention here that if the appellants want to inspect any records, which had been taken over by the Department and are lying with the Department, the same should be allowed without any loss of time. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2003 (10) TMI 607 - ITAT JABALPUR
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... portion of Income-tax Law by Sampat and Iyengar Vol. 2, pages 1489-1490, which support this contention. Similarly the cases cited by the assessee namely Alapati Venkatramaiah (supra) that the assessee cannot be tied down to a wrong statement made by him and Pullangode Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. rsquo s case (supra ) that the wrong entry in the books is not a conclusive piece of evidence . 8. We are of definite view that the addition was due to wrong entry in accounts made by Accountant, which should have been considered at the time of assessment. The lack of proper knowledge of accounts, entry in wrong head of accounts to be treated as bona fide mistake, which Assessing Officer should have considered while passing assessment order as the Assessing Officer is duty bound for passing cogent order on facts in given circumstances, where there should be no chance for arbitrativeness. 9. In the result the addition of Rs. 71,515 is deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 606 - ITAT MUMBAI
Business disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... rsquo ble Apex Court and therefore, when the 2nd proviso is omitted and the 1st proviso is amended, the amended proviso should also be held to be clarificatory and therefore, applicable to all pending proceedings. We, accordingly, respectfully following the ratio of the decision in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. (supra) hold that the 1st proviso as modified by the Finance Act, 2003 would be applicable to all pending proceedings. As per the 1st proviso, anything contained in section 43B would not apply in relation to any sum, which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date for furnishing the return under section 139(1). Admittedly, the entire sum relating to ESIC and PF is paid by the assessee before the due date for filing of the return. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 43B is not called for. In view of above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal. 5. In the result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 605 - ITAT KOLKATA
Unexplained investment ... ... ... ... ..... cross-examined by the revenue, it is not open to the revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. Similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of L. Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT 1958 33 ITR 786. The assessee has also filed a copy of the Instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 issued by the CBDT where it has been held that as a common approach, at the time of search, ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. for a married lady should not be seized. The aforesaid instruction issued by the Board is based on the customary practice prevailing in the Indian society. It is presumed that each member of the family shall possess some jewellery which was either inherited by her or she got it by way of presentation at the time of marriage and other occasions. Therefore, looking to the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the CIT (Appeals). 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 604 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay of revocation - Customs House Agent’s Licence - Revocation of ... ... ... ... ..... re revocation of the licence of the applicants, due procedure established by law under the CHALR, 1984 is followed. The issues raised as regards the knowledge and complicity of the CHA licensee in the alleged misdemeanour and the role played in the misdeclaration made on the Customs documents are the very issue which will have to be decided in the final hearing. At this prima facie stage, after perusal of the detailed findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction to stay the revocation order under CHALR, 1984. Therefore, we refrain from passing a stay of the operation of the said order pending final hearing of this appeal. 5. emsp While rejecting the stay application, applicants rsquo request for early hearing has been granted and the matter is fixed for hearing on 19th January, 2004. The stay application is dismissed. 6. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (10) TMI 603 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Compounded Levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... period. These claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order says that the party, if aggrieved by rejection of the abatement claims, should have appealed against the Assistant Commissioner rsquo s order. 3. emsp Having examined these facts and heard the DR, I find that the observations of the lower authority in relation to the abatement claims are not sustainable inasmuch as, under the relevant Rules, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with such claims. Any order passed by A.C. is only non est. The position, therefore, is that the claims filed by the appellants are awaiting decision of the jurisdictional Commissioner. 4. emsp Having regard to the pendency of the abatement claims with the Department, I am inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the aforesaid amount of duty demanded by the authorities, and I do so. The appeal is posted for regular hearing to 29-12-2003.
-
2003 (10) TMI 602 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Packing material - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... alue cannot be allowed duty credit. We do not find any merit in the arguments of the department. Since the packing material is not being charged to duty separately and is assessed along with the impugned goods and the customer is not being charged separately for the packing material, the input duty credit cannot be denied. In our view it makes no difference whether the assessment of the finished goods is being done on the basis of the tariff value or on the basis of value determined under Section 4 of the Act. 2. emsp Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeals filed by the Department.
-
2003 (10) TMI 601 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... he Supreme Court in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3, such goods, if they were essential for making the final product would have to be considered to be capital goods within the meaning of the definition contained in the explanation to Rule 57Q. 3. emsp Another question which arises in Appeal 2947/98 is whether credit could be denied of parts of re-rolling mill for the reason that they were received and credit taken in the absence of installation certificate for the main machine. There is no such requirement in the rule. The facts are not clear. It is perfectly possible that the assessee brought in the components of machines which has already been installed, prior to the rules relating to capital goods were introduced. Even otherwise, as long as it is not disputed that there are parts of the machine which were installed or to be installed, credit cannot be denied. 4. emsp The appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Commissioner are dismissed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 600 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ied. On appeal, filed by the Revenue, the order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the applicants is that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue to rebut the finding of fact given by the adjudicating authority. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the appeal, applicants have a strong case in their favour. The Stay Petition is allowed unconditionally and the pre-deposit of duty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Adjourned to 1-12-2003 for regular hearing.
-
2003 (10) TMI 599 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Production based capacity - Determination of ... ... ... ... ..... t furnace capacity. We are not able to agree with the appellant rsquo s Counsel that the verification carried out amounts to levying duty based on actual production, in the present case, a furnace of a particular capacity has not been bought and installed. Instead, the existing capacity was being altered by a job work. Therefore, there was no machine capacity certified by machine manufacturer. Therefore, verification has to be treated as quite in order. The question of demand of duty on actual production would arise only if the authorities had ascertained the quantum of goods manufactured during the relevant period and then demanded duty on that quantity. That has not taken place. Instead, the capacity of the furnace has been determined by a proper method of valuation and annual production capacity has been determined based on the furnace capacity. Such an action is entirely in terms of the rules. We find no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal fails and is rejected.
........
|
