|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 460 Records
-
1999 (11) TMI 844 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly took the view that the interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition under article 226 permitting the lifting of attachment on payment of certain amount at one time and a further amount after some more time, does not amount to an order permitting payment of tax in instalments, made under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It is neither an order passed under the provisions of the Act nor does it tantamount to an order permitting payment of tax by instalments. It was an ad hoc order granted by way of interim measure in order to release the properties of the assessee from attachment so as to enable him to run the business. In fact, the Tribunal granted substantial relief by directing adjustment of the amount refundable to the petitioner by virtue of the Supreme Court s order and to demand interest only on the balance amount. We see no error in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, T.R.Cs. Nos. 3, 6 and 9 of 1992 are dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 843 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... t in 1983 52 STC 3 (Malayalee Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu) and 1992 86 STC 569 (Mad.) Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (WVG) Company Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu that the logs of eucalyptus timber is to be taxed as single point goods under entry 84 of the First Schedule and the commodity sold by the respondent-assessee was originally taxed under entry 84 at 5 per cent, the taxing authorities are not entitled to treat the commodity as multi-point goods levying tax once again. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly accepted the claim of second sales and set aside the assessment order. We find that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is perfectly correct. As we find no error for our interference, the revision is 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, this the 16th day of November, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 842 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... referred to supra. Similar is the view taken by one of us (Verma, J.) in a case reported in 1998 109 STC 19 (MP) (Triveni Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax), wherein it is held that enamelled wire is a spare part to motors and machinery under the new M.P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994. 15.. Applying the aforesaid tests laid down in the cases referred above and a plain reading of entry 12 we have no hesitation in holding that the wire is a spare part of submersible pump and accordingly falls in entry 12 of Part IV of Schedule II. 16.. We accordingly answer the question No. 1 in affirmative, i.e., in favour of respondent (dealer) and against the State (department). Since the question No. 1 is answered in favour of respondent, it is not necessary to answer the question No. 2 which has become academic and does not survive for answer on its merit. We therefore, decline to answer the question No. 2 for the reasons stated above. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1999 (11) TMI 841 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is committed. It is for the assessee, thereafter, to satisfy that there was a reasonable cause. The reasonable cause which was stated, was only that the assessee was an export oriented unit and it was first year of business and the modular furniture form part of the equipments, i.e., total unit of computers which was even accepted by the assessing authority at a later date. We need not go to the various contentions which have been raised. The fact remains that, at the time of purchase of items, the said items were not covered by certificate of registration. Even if the C form is issued, subsequently, after the amendment, then, it will not cover the transactions of purchases which have been made before the date of amendment of the certificate of registration. In these circumstances, since substantial relief has already been given by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to grant further relief. The revision petition having no force, is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 840 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ringe areas of an inter-State sale within the meaning of section 3(a) of the CST Act. One has to go into the root of the matter and see whether in fact there was a movement of goods from one State to another on the basis of a contract of sale. We are fully satisfied with this aspect of the case on the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, we hold that the transactions involved in all the cases are not taxable under the TNGST Act as local sales. We, therefore allow all the cases. The Tax Appeals and Tax Revisions cases are allowed to the above extent. The T.Ps. and O.Ps. are also allowed and the respective assessing authorities are permitted to make a reassessment because other issues are involved in those cases. 50.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 51.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the First day of November, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 839 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibed. The only duty on the part of the assessing authority was to complete the proceedings in a reasonable time. Reasonable time can be judged only after looking into the entire facts of the case. Thus, we cannot lay down as a rule of law that proceedings, which have been pending before the assessing authority for more than four years prior to April 1, 1993 cannot be continued under the proviso. It is also not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the assessee can be compelled to produce the account books after a period of four years, since on the facts of this case, we have found that the assessment proceedings were pending for an unreasonably long time. Hence, we have to quash exhibits P1, P4, P5(a), P5(b) and P5(c) with regard to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. 18.. In the result, we quash exhibits P1, P4, P5(a), P5(b) and P5(c). Original petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 32187 of 1993 in O.P. No. 17807 of 1993 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 838 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be defective. Simply because the item is defective or rejected, it will not be changing the basis nature or character of the commodity which has already been subjected to tax. If the tax is already been paid in the State of Karnataka, while purchasing such raw material, tax cannot be levied again, since the tax is payable at the first point. 9.. It is also contended that the revising authority has given a decision on the point of steel tubes without proper notice to the petitioner. That point may now be considered by the revising authority. 10.. In these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside to this extent and the matter is referred back to the revising authority to exclude the local purchases of defectives, rejections and end cuttings on which tax has been paid. Petitioner would however be liable to pay tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in respect of purchases made from outside the State of Rajasthan and sold in the State of Karnataka. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 837 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tated that for the year 1998-99 the result of enquiry by the special investigation branch made out a case of tax evasion. Thus, the notice is extremely vague and does not contain any facts brought out from the record or from the investigation against which the dealer may make an effective representation. 4.. The notice-cum-order also does not mention the amount of security already furnished, the extent of the existing or probable tax liability and how the demand of a security of Rs. 20 lacs and that too in the form of a bank guarantee could be justified. In our view, the order-cum-notice is illegal and cannot be sustained. 5.. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order-cum-notice dated October 30, 1999 is hereby quashed. It will be permissible to the assessing officer to proceed afresh, in accordance with law, if necessary. 6.. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 836 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n to set aside the order of dismissal for default by invoking the proviso to sub-section (5-A) of section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner has not done so. Instead, he filed this T.R.C. straightaway. Even now, it is open to the petitioner to file an application under the said provision. 3.. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing a wrong remedy and there is a substantial point to argue in the appeal, we consider it just and proper to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file an application for setting aside the order of dismissal. If such an application is filed within three weeks from today and the Tribunal is satisfied with the reasons for the absence on the crucial day, it shall pass an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal to file notwithstanding the delay that had occurred in filing the said application. 4.. The T.R.C. is dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 835 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the note file. It was even communicated to the assessing authority. The question of exercise of suo motu power of revision under section 20 having thus been considered and a conscious decision was arrived at, the same authority cannot invoke that power once again to initiate revision proceedings contrary to the decision reached by him earlier. The decision of this Court in Kanakadurga Binny Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999 112 STC 77 (1998) 27 APSTJ 61 has no application for the reason that it is clear from what is extracted at page 84 of STC 69 of APSTJ that there was nothing to suggest that the revisional authority took any decision on a review of the case. Moreover, there was no communication to the assessing authority communicating the decision dropping the proposed revision and accepting the order of the appellate authority. We do not, therefore, see any legal error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 834 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the retrospective nature of the Act. The Act is admittedly prospective in nature. However, a right of appeal inheres in a dealer/assessee the very moment when he files a return under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act or when he is obliged to file a return within the dates prescribed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, whichever is earlier. Therefore, Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1999 cannot apply to assessment proceedings relating to such returns filed or the dates prescribed in the Rules for filing such returns whichever is earlier. In respect of those transactions and assessments the law as it existed prior to Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1999 will alone apply. The original petitions are disposed of in the above manner. 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 22nd day of November, 1999. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 833 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of this, in our opinion, in the instant case, after examining the material on record, grounds stated, the show cause notice for reopening the assessment must be held to be bad, illegal and must be quashed and set aside. In our opinion condition precedent for issuing show cause notices for reopening the assessment did not exist and, therefore, it must be held to be illegal. Even grounds for the longer period of limitation which has been invoked, such as the ground that there was concealment of sales or material particulars or furnishing of incorrect declarations or returns is ill-founded, and hence, the notices for reopening the assessment are bad and illegal. 28.. In the result, rule made absolute in all the petitions with cost. Notice for reassessment issued by the respondent No. 3, at annexure M in Special Civil Application Nos. 7072 of 1996 and 7073 of 1996 and at annexure E in Special Civil Application No. 7074 of 1996 stand quashed in all the matters. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 832 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ry, that the petitioner did take reasonable and diligent steps after the time was granted and later on extended. These circumstances, coupled with the fact that while extending the time on the second occasion, the Tribunal granted only twenty days time as against two months time requested by the petitioner and that the petitioner was able to get the D forms within three weeks thereafter, impel us to take the view that the Tribunal should have adopted a more liberal approach and, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed a legal error in not granting extension of time for production of D forms filed along with the application for extension. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the assessing authority to receive the two D forms issued by the Kerala Water Authority and to give the necessary relief if they are otherwise in order. The tax revision case is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 831 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f royalty in adjudging the liability to levy sales tax would apply with greater force against the stand of the State. Consequently, this submission on behalf of the State does not call for any re-thinking on the decision already arrived at by us. 3.. For all the reasons stated above, the claim made on behalf of the petitioners that no sales tax is leviable on the amounts of either royalty or dead-rent payable under the statutory lease deeds has to be sustained. It is made clear that the respondent-State is not entitled to levy sales tax on the payments envisaged in form K of the mining lease since they do not constitute any consideration for any transaction of sale of minerals. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C.M.P. No. 870 of 1999 in C.W.P. No. 266 of 1995 and C.M.P. No. 555 of 1995 In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, these applications are also disposed of and the interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Writ petitions disposed of.
-
1999 (11) TMI 830 - SUPREME COURT
Appointment to the post of Member, Appellate Tribunal, Sales-tax - Held that:- No hesitation in allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal as he is the only other person in the panel of names selected by the Select Committee and as nothing has been brought out against him by the Government.
On the facts, we find that all the conditions set out in the office memorandum issued by the Central Government dated 14.5.1987 are fulfilled in the present case and the rejection of the appellant’s name without any reason therefor is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The initiation of fresh process of selection is not valid and it is hereby quashed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1999 (11) TMI 829 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... e sides. The contention of the Revenue in these appeals is that these frames being part of air conditioners falls under 8415 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the Revenue is that these steel frames are made out of the steel sheets duly bent for acquiring appropriate shape to be fitted with the air conditioner, therefore, classifiable under Heading 8415. 3. emsp We find that the Revenue issued a Trade Notice No. 67-C.E., dated 30-9-86 for classification of parts and accessories of air conditioners and in this trade notice as per Annexure lsquo B rsquo parts and accessories and other products used in the refrigerators or air conditioner industry to be classified as per merits. At Sl. No. 26, of Annexure lsquo B rsquo frame made of iron or steel is mentioned. Therefore, in view of the trade notice these are to be classified on merits under Heading 7326. In view of the above trade notice we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue and the same are rejected.
-
1999 (11) TMI 828 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
“Printed wrappers” and “Printed sleeves” - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... be fixed or attached on different products were products of printing industry, on the ground that the matter related to products which would serve no purpose but for printing. The Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of New Jack Printing Works directly answers all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants, since the products in dispute in the present case are identical to the product whose classification has been determined in the New Jack Printing Works case. 12. emsp In the light of the above, I agree with the order recorded by the learned Member (Judicial) that the products in dispute are products of packaging industry and that the appeal is required to be dismissed. 13. emsp The papers may now be returned to the Original Bench for recording the majority opinion. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) dated 15-10-1999 MAJORITY ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) 26-4-1999 Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) dated 15-10-1999
-
1999 (11) TMI 827 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... hi High Court and the Delhi High Court had restrained the Haryana State Industrial Corporation Limited from parting with possession or creating any third party interest with respect to the said machinery. By virtue of the proposed agreement placed on the record, the respondent-company is being given the right to sell the property subject to the conditions that had been mentioned therein. Since a lis has already been created, it is directed that no sale of the said machinery shall take place without the permission of the Delhi High Court. Subject to the above-said condition, the present company petition is disposed of. Company Application No. 460 of 1999 filed by the Corporation is dismissed. Company Application No. 529A of 1999 is disposed of with a direction that the respondent-company shall pay the amount in terms of the agreement subject to the aforesaid. In case default occurs, the petitioner-company would be at liberty to seek revival of Company Petition No. 144 of 1998.
-
1999 (11) TMI 825 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... Excise without reference of the matter to the Collector of Customs to whom the appellants had executed the bond. The Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) who was issued the show cause notice ought to have explained to the Tribunal on being called upon that a special order has been issued by the Board to the Central Excise authority to issue show cause notice under Section 28 empowering the Collector of Central Excise to initiate the proceedings under the Customs Act. But the Commissioner even after specifically called upon to file the report on the jurisdiction issue has failed to report and therefore we are constrained to draw adverse influence to hold that the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act and to proceed and adjudicate the same in the manner indicated above. Therefore, the appellants rsquo appeals succeed on this short point. Hence, we set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeals.
-
1999 (11) TMI 823 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Judicial discipline - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... At the time when the documents were defaced, the excise authorities should have made corresponding entries in their registers. We are not in a position to hold that the authorities defaced these documents without making corresponding entries in any records maintained by them. The whole of the proceedings clearly goes to show that since department had not moved its little finger till date to verify whether appellant got Modvat credit after getting the proper documents verified and defaced, from their own registers and records till date, we do not find any ground for conceding this submission made by learned DR at the fag end of this century namely November 1999 after a lapse of more than 5 years. 20. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner in its entirety including imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 21. emsp Appeal is allowed with consequential relief according to law.
........
|
