|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 181 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 269 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ef by way of writ from this Court. Another reason peculiar to this case which prompts us not to throw out the petitions on the ground of alternative remedy, is an admitted fact that in the instant case the Sales Tax Officer Shri J.N. Gupta conducted the administrative enquiry in the matter on superior orders and confirmed his findings sitting in another capacity as a quasijudicial Tribunal. Thus to direct the petitioners to prefer the statutory appeal would really amount to an appeal from caesar to caesar. We, therefore, had not found any merit in the preliminary objection and had, therefore, rejected the same. The petitions are partly allowed. The cases are remanded to the Assistant Sales Tax Officer for determination afresh in the light of the law and the observations stated above. There will be no order as to costs. The security bond/bank guarantee furnished in each of the writ petitions under the orders of this Court shall stand discharged. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 268 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... were not sold in the State of M.P. or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India. It appears that one of the processes in the manufacture of electrodes and filaments was undergone at Bombay and the end-product was finished at Indore within the State of M.P. On these facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that all intermediate processes involved in the manufacture of goods must take place in the State of Madhya Pradesh for claiming concession under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. We are supported in our view by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1985 60 STC 184. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4.. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1988 (10) TMI 267 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mune to rusting. On the finding recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal, the articles manufactured by the assessee are not immune to rust. Further in the case of Advance Bricks Company v. Assessing Authority, Rohtak 1987 67 STC 233 1988 UPTC 126, in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment Honourable the Supreme Court has taken the view that in the absence of a statutory definition of the term brick , the common parlance meaning of the word as found in the dictionaries has to be accepted. In these circumstances and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sharpedge Limited, Meerut 1989 73 STC 90 1987 UPTC 1321 and the findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal to my mind the blades manufactured by the assessee are not stainless steel items but are unclassified items. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no error involved in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. In the result, all the revisions fail and are dismissed with one set of cost. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x. In that event the petitioners are answerable for such deposits that are made by the customers. Under these circumstances, the said collection of deposits by the petitioners cannot be held to be an unauthorised one thereby attracting the liability provision under section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Therefore penalty cannot be levied on the collection of deposits by the petitioners under such circumstances. Therefore this Court holds that the collection of deposits by the petitioners is legal and it does not contravene any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, especially the provisions under section 22(1) of the said Act. Therefore the proceedings of the first respondent taken under section 22(1) of the Act are bad and, therefore, accordingly quashed. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings in each of the writ petitions are quashed. However, there is no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 265 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... port Promotion Council, World Trade Centre, Calcutta, and the certificate of the Analysis issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Jodhpur, and few more authoritative material came to the conclusion that both these items, namely, the hoofs and horn meals, do not fall in the category of chemical fertilizer. But unfortunately, learned counsel for the department did not rebut these evidence nor did they produce anything to show that both these items have any chemical component in it. Since, the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the relevant factors, has come to the conclusion that both the items, i.e., hoofs and horn meals, do not fall within the definition of chemical fertilizer, there is no justification for taking a different view in the matter. Thus, in this view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct and these revision petitions do not call for any interference by this Court. The revision petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s a registered Association under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, can certainly institute any legal proceedings including the filing of a writ petition. Now so far as the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, it is seen that they are similar to the contentions raised in the decision reported in 1986 63 STC 18 (Mad.) (Sree Annapoorna v. State of Tamil Nadu). Therefore, the members of the petitioner-Association are entitled to the benefit of waiver under G.O. Ms. Nos. 436 and 437, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 27th April, 1981. Following the decision in 1986 63 STC 18 (Mad.) (Sree Annapoorna v. State of Tamil Nadu) we find that the transactions relating to supply of food and drink in the hotels and restaurants during the assessment years are not sales and as such are not liable to sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. In this view, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 263 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... id and we declare it so. Accordingly, we allow these writ petitions and direct the State Level Committee to reconsider the cases of the petitioners afresh and seek such explanation from them wherever the case set up by them requires it by giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. Let that be done most expeditiously and in any case when the State Level Committee is meeting next for deciding such like cases. Till the question of eligibility certificate is decided, let the petitioners keep filing their sales tax returns in accordance with law but the recovery of tax from them from the date they made the applications for grant of eligibility certificate till the decision thereon, shall remain deferred. Should there be any dilatory tactics on behalf of the petitioners to have the proceedings prolonged, the respondents are at liberty to move this Court for alteration or vacation of the stay order. These petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 262 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty imposed under the said Act which remains unpaid after the due date is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. As noticed above, the proceedings to that effect had been taken by the Assistant Collector. Summons and warrants had also been issued by him before the decree in favour of respondent No. 1 had been passed. The liability of the assets of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to satisfy this demand of arrears of sales tax has first to be met with before the proceeds of the sale of their property are appropriated towards the decree secured by respondent No. 1 in its favour. Consequently, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated 4th May, 1985, of the learned senior Sub Judge, Patiala, without any orders as to costs. I allow the application of the petitioner. The executing court is directed to make to the petitioner payment of Rs. 33,978 which has been retained out of the sale proceeds towards satisfaction of the demand of the arrears of sales tax. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... above discussion is, the petitioners are not liable to be taxed on the excess over and above the price fixed under clause 5-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The said excess is not exigible to the sales tax or additional tax. 64.. Accordingly W.P. No. 869 of 1982 will stand allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 one set. 65.. Applying the ratio in W.P. No. 869 of 1982, W.P. Nos. 497, 511 to 514, 742, 866 to 868, 1257 to 1262, 1284, 1511 to 1516 and 2291 of 1982 2460, 3542 and 3543 of 1986 1705, 1706, 3397 to 3400, 3426, 3625, 3626, 3720, 3721 and 6295 of 1987 1125, 1218 to 1220, 1813, 1814, 3986, 4854 and 4855 of 1988 will stand allowed and the assessment orders in these petitions are set aside. No costs. T.C. Nos. 196 to 204 of 1981, 1329 and 1330 of 1986 will stand allowed, assessment orders in these cases are set aside and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority to be decided afresh in the light of the above ruling. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not in law constitute or spell-out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Orders of the High Court set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and ordering issue of summons to the respondents is restored. The criminal case initiated on the complaint will now be proceeded with in accordance with law.
-
1988 (10) TMI 259 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Powers of Court to rectify register of members
-
1988 (10) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases
... ... ... ... ..... idence for the court to relieve them of the liability incurred thereby. Further, there are different considerations for the defaults committed under different Acts. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 633 of the Act are exceptional as these relieve an officer of the company from the consequences of a default, whether penal or otherwise, before he is asked to face the proceedings of either levying penalty or of prosecution. The court has, therefore, to be cautious in its approach before exercising discretion in favour of the delinquent officer though, no doubt, the discretion has to be a judicial one. Before exercising any such discretion, the court has to be reasonably satisfied that the requirements of the section have been met. In this case, I do not think that this has been done. Consequently, I decide these issues against the petitioners. Relief. mdash In view of my above findings, this petition is dismissed. I, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... different from this machine. There can be exclusive Boring Machines but not exclusive Jig Boring Machine. We further notice that the invoice described the goods as ldquo coordinate Jig Boring and Milling Machine rdquo and the literature shows that it is described as ldquo tool room precision coordinate jig boring machine rdquo . The learned representative of the appellants emphasised that the imported machine is not a production machine at all, its high precision making it necessary only for the tool room. We have also seen the certificate given by the Central Machine Tool Institute, Bangalore wherein they recorded that ldquo we are convinced that the machine under reference is a special tool room coordinate jig boring machine rdquo . 7. These circumstances show that the claims of the appellants were valid. We hold that Serial No. 2 of the table contained in Notification No. 40/78 covers the imported machine. In this view we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1988 (10) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Separate show cause notice when not necessary ... ... ... ... ..... the present case. In that case the West Regional Bench was dealing with an application for refund under Section 11B, whereas here we are concerned with the demand for duty under Section 11A. Section 11A is a recovery provision and the two Sections 11A and 11B, although in a sense complementary, are not really pari passu. Section 11A provides for two different time-limits for recovery which is absent in Section 11B. 8. It is further seen that in this case the revised classification has been made applicable by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 21-5-1985 with effect from the date of issue of the Show Cause Notice and such prospective revision of the classification has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of MAT Steel Equipment Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. (8) (SC). In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1988 (10) TMI 242 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Preventive detention ... ... ... ... ..... arly subjective and was correctly arrived at rdquo . In view of this reply the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the copy of the report of the goldsmith who certified the purity of the Gold had not been supplied to the detenue and therefore, also there is a further breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It is not denied by department that the copy of the report of the certified Goldsmith was not supplied to the detenue. As this satisfaction regarding foreign gold was certainly based on this report it was a vital document, a copy of which must have been supplied to the detenue. Since this has not admittedly been done this also appears to be of further violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and Sec. 3(3) of the CQFEPOSA Act. 11. In view of this the detention of Shri Ghanshyam under the COFEPOSA Act cannot be said to be justified and he is entitled to be set at liberty. He, therefore, be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
-
1988 (10) TMI 241 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seizure of Indian Currency ... ... ... ... ..... nd till then the concerned officer may retain the Indian currency notes, but after the expiry of aforesaid period of four months, the Indian currency shall be returned to the petitioner unless the Court before whom proceedings under Section 56 of the Act are pending orders production of the same in that court. 10. Consequently, we partly allow the writ petition and hold that the Indian currency notes to the tune of Rs. 21,830/- seized from the petitioner could not be retained beyond a period of one year and their retention is not in accordance with law. We order that they be returned to the petitioner. But as stated earlier as the adjudication proceedings are pending, they shall not be returned for a period of four months during which those proceedings be finalised. After expiry of period of four months they shall be returned unless there is an order from the Court where the proceedings under Section 56 of the Act are pending in respect of the currency notes. Costs made easy.
-
1988 (10) TMI 240 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Yarn - Artificial Silk ... ... ... ... ..... oncluded. It has been held that rayon and nylon yarn are not only made of lsquo other fibre rsquo , but are also yarn of lsquo artificial silk rsquo within the meaning of s. 2(g) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 and accordingly, the same is taxable u/s 5A of the said Act. 2. The petitioner rsquo s contention to the contrary has, therefore, to be rejected, following the decision of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the writ petition must fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1988 (10) TMI 239 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT - Declaration for input ... ... ... ... ..... manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A to file a declaration with the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, indicating the description of the final products manufactured in his factory, and the inputs intended to be used in each of the said final product. We also note that the proforma for declaration to be filed under Rule 57G also has specific columns for the description of the final product and its Tariff classification, as well as description of the inputs and its Tariff classfication, besides the column to indicate the nature of the input, whether raw material or component etc. When such is the legal position, and such is the requirement of the proforma for the declaration prescribed for the purpose, the contention of the appellants that broad description of the inputs will suffice for the purpose of availing MOD-VAT credit, is not tenable. In this view of the matter, we find no substance in the appeal which is accordingly rejected.
-
1988 (10) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT - Transitional period ... ... ... ... ..... ich credit was allowable under any Rule or Notification prior to 1st March, 1986. Once it is ascertained that this credit was allowable irrespective of the fact whether the appellants actually availed of the credit or not the appellants rsquo case would fall within the exception of Rule 57H(2). We observe that this aspect has not been examined in the impugned order. Notwithstanding that since it has been established and it is not contradicted by Revenue that the appellants products fall within the ambit of Rule 56A, we hold that the benefit as pleaded in terms of Rule 57H(2) would be available to the appellants. The appellants as it is have been allowed the benefit in respect of the inputs which were lying in stock as on 1-3-1986 and which were received till 31-3-1986 and the appellants rsquo claim was turned down only in cases where duty had been paid before 31-1-1986. Since we have held that this cut off date will not vitiate the appellants rsquo claim, we allow the appeal.
-
1988 (10) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... heir application for approval of PMP and for determining the valuation of those items which were not covered by above quotations under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1962. 12. Thus we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants and hold that the valuation made by the Collector is neither exorbitant nor very high. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no case for fine or penalty also cannot be accepted. The Collector has found the appellants guilty of mis-declaring the description of the imported goods and also of misdeclaration of the value and has given cogent reason for imposing the fine and penalty both on the importers and Shri P.N. Sadanand, their Managing Director. 13. In the result we dismiss the appeal being devoid of any merit. 14. Misc. Application for permission to file additional documents is also rejected as it was not pressed during the hearing.
........
|
