|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 460 Records
-
1999 (11) TMI 864 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... against the appellant, that is where the matter must rest. The civil appeals are dismissed.No order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion of the suit shop from the defendant, if the appellants deposit in the trial Court, within three months from today, the sum of ₹ 1000/-. There is no need to deposit any interest inasmuch as according to the deed, the defendant was to be in possession and interest was to be set off against the occupation of the shop. We direct that on such deposit of ₹ 1000/-, the defendant will produce the mortgage deed into Court for cancellation. In case he does not produce the deed, within the said period, it will be deemed that the mortgage is cancelled. On such deposit of ₹ 1000/- as aforesaid, the defendant shall restore possession to the appellants. On such restoration of possession, defendant shall be entitled to withdraw the sum of ₹ 1000/-. In case the defendant does not surrender possession as aforesaid, it will be open to the appellants to seek possession by way of execution. The appeal is allowed. Costs of appellants are quantified at ₹ 5,000/-.
-
1999 (11) TMI 862 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... correct interpretation of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has no doubt been indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned Judgment that even on merits the offence under Sections 417 and 465 IPC has not been established but that was only a casual observation without application of mind and without consideration of the facts on record on the basis of which the learned Special Judge convicted the two respondents of the offence under Sections 417 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also apparent from the very Judgment itself when the learned Judge indicated that it is not necessary to set out in detail the material facts giving rise to the appeal as the same are not required to be repeated since the appeal is being disposed of on a pure question of law. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court and direct that the appeal in question be disposed of by the High Court on merits. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 861 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the posts of Asstt. Engineer in their own channel of promotion. They were eligible and were consequently selected by the Chief Engineer and later appointed as Asstt. Engineers by promotion by the State Govt. Since it had already been found as a fact by the Tribunal while writing the main judgment that the appellant was promoted to the post of Asstt. Engineer in accordance with the Rules against a permanent vacancy and had been given ad hoc promotion pending concurrence of the Public Service Commission and since this finding has been upheld by us above, we have no hesitation in holding that in terms of Rule 26, the appellant, who was promoted in 1972, in which year direct recruitments of respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were also made, shall rank senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal on Review is set aside and the main judgment dated 4.1.1993 is restored, but without any order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 860 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Royalties. Over and above lump sum royalty amounting to 11.8 million US , the appellant has to pay 3% running royalty on parts manufactured locally using the foreign collaborator’s know-how and sold as spare parts. No provision in the agreement requires the appellant to pay royalty on imported parts which are sold as spares. When the foreign collaborator allowed the appellant to use its know-how to manufacture spares in India and those were sold as spare parts they insisted on payment of royalty. This payment of royalty has been judicially recognised as well. Imported parts of the vehicle sold as spares were not subjected to payment of royalty. So the price of parts imported which are sold as spares cannot be loaded to any extent on the premise that royalty was payable by the appellant. 9. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the appellate order passed by the Commissioner is clearly unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside. Appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 859 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as ample powers to quash the proceedings and the complaint and accused need not in all cases be relegated to the learned Magistrate directing the accused to file proper application for discharge or dropping of the proceedings. As discussed above, the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in this case discloses no criminal liability as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act and, therefore, the complaint is required to be quashed. 18. When petitioners succeed in the first part of the matter, this court need not to deal with the second part of the matter. 19. For the foregoing discussion, this Misc. Criminal Application is allowed. The complaint filed on 20th June, 1996 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Lakhtar, which culminated into Criminal Case No. 132 of 1996, is quashed and all the proceedings taken in pursuance of this complaint are also quashed. 20. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 858 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nding the eligibility certificate and the agreement read with the Government orders which lead to the only conclusion that till the petitioner reaches the base production volume and sales volume, he has to pay the sales tax in accordance with law in respect of the primary unit and the expanded unit. The question of monthly instalment payment does not at all arise. The payment of tax will be in accordance with the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. After all, the scheme itself is a beneficiary scheme to promote industry. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the beneficiary scheme and seek to get unextended benefits by taking advantage of past practice, etc., Accordingly, the O.P. No. 1348 of 1999 is also dismissed. 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 Fifth day of November, 1999. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 857 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded a finding if the purchases were made by the revisionist pursuant to existing agreements for purchases on behalf of ex-U.P. principals and the inference that the purchases by the assessee were in his own account was drawn on the basis of submission of form III-C(1) and wrongly applying the presumption under section 12-A(2)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the revisions deserve to be remanded to the Tribunal for re-decision in the light of the observations made above after examining the material placed before it and specifically recording findings in the light of the observations made above. It may be pointed out that each transaction has to be examined as specific finding shall have to be given by the Tribunal. 17.. Consequently, the revisions are allowed. Judgment of the Tribunal are set aside and the cases are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 856 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s levied at 4 per cent while in the other, it is levied at 10 per cent because of furnishing and nonfurnishing of C forms. The petitioner may also submit a copy of the assessment order of the State where the C forms have been submitted and the facts could be verified by the assessing authority. In case, the assessing authority of Karnataka is not satisfied that the transaction is covered by C forms, then, the petitioner has to approach the authorities who have received the C forms and are not remitting the said C forms to the Karnataka authorities which has the jurisdiction to levy the tax for transfer of the said C forms. In this revision petition, because the Trichy authorities are not a party, therefore, we are not issuing any direction to the said authorities. The petitioner would be free to take such legal action against Trichy authorities as is permissible under law. Revision petition is disposed of with the above observation. Revision petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 855 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rather than leaning the other way. Of course, this concern comes into play only where the language of the amending statute is not clear on the question of retrospectivity. 11.. In view of the abovesaid settled principles of law, and also in view of the fact that the lis had already commenced by issuing of show cause notice by the authorities to the petitioner, the appellate authority is not correct in returning the appeal papers filed by the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements under the Act No. 14 of 1999. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the appellate authority/second respondent in returning the papers, are set aside, and the second respondent is directed to deal with the appeals filed by the petitioner, and the stay petitions, on the basis of the provisions of the said Act, before amendment under the Act No. 14 of 1999. With the above observa- tions, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 854 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e interest of the revenue has no substance. The appellate authority has to decide the appeal in accordance with law if any view has been taken which is not in accordance with law the power of revision under section 22 can be exercised. The effect of the letters referred by the assessing authority were not properly considered by the appellate authority. It was not disputed by the assessee that the nature of transaction is different and therefore the effect of other transaction be examined. As observed above, the transaction which were inter-State sales were shown as transfers and were at the instance of Mahalsa Enterprises, Bangalore. Submission of F form is not a conclusive evidence for which the assessing authority has the jurisdiction to examine the matter and come to its own conclusion and if it is found that the transaction is not a branch transfer or transfer to the agent, tax in accordance with law could be levied. Appeals are accordingly, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 853 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... levied only on the inputs or materials used in the retreading job work. Thus, we find that the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal that retreading and recapping work done by the appellant in this case is exigible to tax is in order. However, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is one of remand and we also feel that an opportunity has to be given to the assessee to claim deductions as contemplated in the Act with reference to the provisions of the Act at the relevant time. Therefore the remand order of the Appellate Tribunal by upholding the exigibility to tax in respect of the materials or inputs used in the retreading or recapping work is quite in order and no interference is called for. In such circumstances, the tax revision stands dismissed. 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 12th day of November, 1999.
-
1999 (11) TMI 852 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the goods. This was not considered sufficient by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal to substantiate the petitioner s claim of the goods having been returned. The Tribunal felt that if there was actually any inter-State sale F form could have been produced. This conclusion is not acceptable because F form can be issued only in respect of a completed transaction. 3.. In the circumstances we feel that the matter needs to be re-examined and accordingly we direct the assessing officer to permit the petitioner to place further materials in support of his stand that the goods have been sent back and there had been no inter-State sale as alleged. The application is accordingly closed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 851 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... Secondly, the amendment to rule 48G brought in a significant change as regards the class of industrial unit to which the amended provision would apply. In defining the expression newly set up industrial unit , as found place in the Explanation to this rule, it is made clear that the amended provision would apply to an industrial unit which has been established and commissioned by the dealer for the first time on or after the first day of June, 1993. The company s unit was established and commissioned much earlier than this date. This unit even incurred tax liability on January 30, 1993, i.e., prior to June 1, 1993. Hence, the company s unit remains outside the ambit of the amended provision. The amended rule 48G cannot be applied to the applicant s unit. 7.. In view of the above circumstances, we find no ground to maintain the instant application which is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 850 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... part of a local area as defined in the Act. What is relevant is wherever the Industrial area (in which the factory or unit of petitioner is situated) is part of a local area as defined under the Act, the provisions of the Act will be attracted. 13.. No other contention is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is seen from the petitions that some other contentions have been urged. It is agreed by the counsel that those are already covered by the decision of this court either Samyukta Karnataka 1998 110 STC 226, or the decision in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 2000 117 STC 121 ILR 1999 Kar 1828. 14.. In view of the above, these petitions are rejected. Wherever the petitioners have consequentially challenged the orders of the assessing authority the petitioners may pursue their remedy by way of appeal and if the appeals are filed within one month from this day, they shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 849 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt legislation, if it proceeds upon an erroneous construction of previous legislation, cannot alter that previous legislation, but if there be any ambiguity in the earlier legislation, then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put upon the earlier Act. (See Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 1921 2 KB 403. The position was reiterated by the apex Court in Jogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1969 SC 1089 and State of Bihar v. S.K. Roy AIR 1966 SC 1995. In the case at hand, there is absolutely no ambiguity in the concerned entries. The inevitable conclusion is that from April 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 tax has to be levied at the rate of 15 per cent and thereafter 6 per cent in view of the subsequent notification. That precisely is what the authorities have adopted. There is no infirmity in the conclusions which warrant interference. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 848 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ivilege price for parting with the right of the Government in selling liquor in retail by the contractors and consideration payable by the contractors for the grant of the privileges. It is further declared that no turnover tax is payable by the petitioner for the privilege price for parting with the privilege by the State and the demand for the turnover tax on the excise duty component is opposed to law and contrary to law. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Before concluding, we wish to point out that the above batch of cases was pending before us for nearly ten months. We are happy that we are able to pronounce the judgment today. We heard very learned arguments from the counsels. Even though the case was adjourned for a number of times because of the inconvenience of lawyers, we are thankful to them since ultimately they rendered all assistance to the court with their clear expositions of law. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 847 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ealer falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration. In the instant case there is no dispute that the goods purchased by the assessee were covered by the certificate of registration the only question was whether after purchase, the goods he could have resold by him. In case he had used the goods for purposes other than those provided in the certificate of registration he could have been punished for violation of clause (d) of section 10 and not for violation of clause (b). Thus, at the time of purchasing the goods it cannot be said that the dealer had falsely represented that the goods of such class were covered by his certificate. There was thus no misrepresentation. In these circumstances also penalty could not have been imposed. 7.. Both the revisions are, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and that of the first appellate authority is restored. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 846 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e has recorded a positive finding that there has been contumacious conduct and a conscious attempt to evade tax. Normally in such matters, scope for interference is very limited. But considering the fact that the revised returns were filed before verification and detection of any omission by the assessing officer, it can certainly be said to be a mitigating factor while deciding the quantum of penalty to be levied. Additionally, contrary to what has been observed by the learned single Judge, the transactions were incorporated in the books of account. Period for which legitimate tax payable to Government was withheld is nearly 30 months. The quantum of tax involved is Rs. 1,50,051 for the assessment year 1984-85 and Rs. 1,96,714.95 for the assessment year 1985-86. This being the position, we feel penalty of Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 40,000, for the two assessment years respectively, would meet the ends of justice. Writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r things. In this connection, it would be relevant to judicially note the observations in Middleton v. Texas Power and Light Company (1918) 249 US 152 where the US Supreme Court held that it be presumed that the legislator understands and appreciates the need of its people that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and its discretion based upon adequate grounds. 8.. The observations made in the case of Sree Jagadish Colour Company 1997 107 STC 522 (Kar) ILR 1996 Kar 2052 referred to above can only be applicable in a case where the circular is against the assessee, but if the circular is in favour of the assessee then those instructions have to be followed in terms of section 3-A(1). 9.. In the light of the observations made above, it is held that the petitioner is liable to tax at 8 per cent as clarified by the Commissioner. The assessing authority shall recompute the tax accordingly. 10.. Petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
