Tax Management India. Com
        A knowledge portal that keeps us updated ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax HC VAT and Sales Tax - HC This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

VAT and Sales Tax - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 19381 to 19400 of 19751 Records

  • 1955 (9) TMI 45

    ... ...
    ... ... ns the case of a revision application against an order passed in revision and not in appeal by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax. 3.. In the result this application is dismissed. Application dismissed. (1) 1951 2 Bom. S.T.T.S.D. 40 2 S.T.C. 158.


  • 1955 (9) TMI 44

    ... ...
    ... ... ortnight. We think that the authorities below were justified in the method of calculation adopted by them, and that the applicants have no good grounds for objecting to the assessment. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.


  • 1955 (9) TMI 43

    ... ...
    ... ... partment. The costs of the revision will abide the result of the appeal before the Tribunal. Advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 100. Case remanded. (1) 1954 26 I.T.R. 775 (1955) 1 M.L.J. 60 S.C. Case remanded. (1) 1954 26 I.T.R. 775 (1955) 1 M.L.J. 60 S.C.


  • 1955 (9) TMI 42

    ... ...
    ... ... tition No. 39 of 1954, a writ of certiorari will issue as prayed for. As the decision in these two petitions depended upon the interpretation of certain sections of the Sales Tax Act, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 36

    ... ...
    ... ... re the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, should be quashed and that the Sessions Court should proceed to try the three accused before a fresh jury for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ordered accordingly.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 35

    ... ...
    ... ... idence to substantiate the plea of commission agency is a new fact within the meaning of section 12A(6) of the Act. The review petition was rightly dismissed. The revision fails and is dismissed with costs-Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 34

    ... ...
    ... ... uestion of law to this Court. For the reasons given above, we hold that the application is not maintainable and must be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. KANHAIYA SINGH, J.-I agree. Application dismissed.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 33

    ... ...
    ... ... certainly liable to sales tax. The Sales Tax Tribunal was, therefore, right in negativing the contention of the petitioners. The revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in all the revisions. Petitions dismissed.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 32

    ... ...
    ... ... m unable to hold that the petitioners have succeeded in proving that the State Government has committed any act of improper discrimination in imposing sales tax on khandsari sugar. This petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 31

    ... ...
    ... ... ground that the prosecutions have not been against the firm as such and that, therefore, they must fail. In the end, the convictions and sentences are set aside and the accused acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. Convictions set aside.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 30

    ... ...
    ... ... ide. With this modification this revision is dismissed. The applicant should pay up his fine of Rs. 500 without delay. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused. Petition dismissed. (1) (1918) I.L.R. 40 All. 569. (2) (1900) I.L.R. 27 Cal. 565.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 25

    ... ...
    ... ... of Tamil Nadu 1997 106 STC 367 supra) and the present order in this T.C.(R) No. 82 of 1989. 11.. The net result is, no interference is called for by this Court in the present case. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 24

    ... ...
    ... ... n our opinion, the petition has no force and must be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss it with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. The petitioner shall be entitled to a refund of the outstanding amount of the security deposited by him. Petition dismissed.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 23

    ... ...
    ... ... assess- ment after taking such further evidence as is furnished by the assessee or the department. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on points (1) and (4) having failed, there will be no order as to costs. Ordered according.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 22

    ... ...
    ... ... of Sales Tax to decide after hearing the applicants that their application should be rejected as time-barred. 3.. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector, and this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 21

    ... ...
    ... ... petitioners for realisation of the tax. The petitioners shall have their costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100. The petitioners are also entitled to a refund of the tax paid as also a refund of the court- fee paid. PANIGRAHI, C.J.-I agree. Ordered accordingly.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 20

    ... ...
    ... ... han 35s. The view taken by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax was correct. 3.. We, accordingly, allow the application, set aside the order of the Collector of Sales Tax and restore that of the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax. Application allowed.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 19

    ... ...
    ... ... R. 57 Mad. 237 1 I.T.R. 289. one point of time is valid as the assessment was based only on monthly returns and in the manner provided by rule 4. The revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 18

    ... ...
    ... ... R. 57 Mad. 237 1 I.T.R. 289. one point of time is valid as the assessment was based only on monthly returns and in the manner provided by rule 4. The revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 17

    ... ...
    ... ... e being the foundation for any penal action under section 15(b) of the Act, it follows that the prosecution has to fail. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge must, therefore, be up- held. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Let's just recapitulate:

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.