|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 365 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ect, the authority has proceeded to pass orders on the basis of what he felt was a reasonable estimation. We need to observe here that before following that procedure, a situation will have to be arrived at whereunder there would have been grounds for the authority to hold that the records do not represent the correct facts. It is in this background that we are of the view that the appellant must be given a fresh opportunity of meeting whatever material the department proposes to use against them. In these circumstances, the cases are remanded to the revisional authority with a direction that a fresh and properly drafted show cause notice be served upon the assessee. This procedure be completed within a period of three months from today. Thereafter, the assessee shall be given time to file the reply and to contest the correctness of the proposed action. The appeals accordingly succeed to this extent and stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 364 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt of sales tax has been granted in respect of the goods dealt with by them unlike in the case of medium scale and large scale industries, which are granted the facility of deferred payment of tax. In the circumstances, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition has no merit. The learned counsel points out that under the impugned notice only three days time was granted from the date of receipt of the notices for payment of the amount demanded. We are of the view that the time granted is unreasonable and to that extent the notices are bad. The petitioner shall be given four weeks time from today for payment of the amount demanded. Subject to the above the writ petition is dismissed. It will be open to the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded together with interest thereon if the petitioner fails to pay the amount within the four weeks time allowed, i.e., up to January 18, 1996. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 363 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thorities and the appellate authorities shall consider the objection and the appeals, without going into the question of limitation. The assessments shall be finalised and the appeals shall be decided in the light of the observations made and the interpretation placed in this judgment on section 12-A of the Act and rule 18-C of the Rules. However, we make no order as to costs. The W.M.Ps. are also disposed of. 28.. We any also point out that while determining the real consensual price, when compared with the prevailing market price, the price at which similar goods are sold by the retailers and the price at which the goods are sold by wholesalers, cannot be the comparable price for the purpose of determining the real consensual price of the wholesaler. Similarly, the price at which the wholesaler has sold the goods shall not also be the prevailing market price for the purpose of determining the real consensual price of the retail seller. Writ appeals and petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 362 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shun and spurn litigative proclivity, it seems proper to draw the attention of the State Government to consider propriety or necessity of invocation of sections 10 and 12 of the Act in such cases on proper application, to be prescribed, from those obligated or obsessed to run or manage canteens as social or welfare measure. It is apt to say that Millon in a letter in 1666 wrote- Ubi bene, ibi patria (our country is wherever we are well off) . In a welfare State, it should then be the high aim of any Government to ensure that country men are well off and not forced to be lugged in avoidable litigation. After all, there should be freedom from verticity and taxation and vexation should be made to live as distant neighbours. So much for the day. This is one way of encouraging concept of tax-abiding rather than tax-avoiding attitude. 24.. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1995 (12) TMI 361 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing for the petitioner, however, urged that in view of the settled position of law laid down by this Court the respondents ought to have refunded the amount of tax of Rs. 16,000 to the petitioner and merely because the review is filed by the respondents which is still pending is no ground to withhold the said amount. Mr. Jhingan sought to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Haryana Drinks Private Limited v. State of Haryana 1993 88 STC 332. In this view of the matter we direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 16,000 to the petitioner as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Respondents are further directed to pay interest from January 1, 1995, till date of payment at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Certified copy be furnished to the petitioner on payment of urgent costs within one week. Writ petition to stand disposed of in the above terms. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 360 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is no reason for the Tribunal to agree with the view taken by the authorities below that form XXXI was prepared later on. This is absolutely without any evidence. This is based on mere conjecture and no enquiry was made from the supplier at Madras to verify the dealer s contention that it had sent the said form along with 8 other forms and the selling dealer had handed over the same to the transporter along with other documents. In any case, even if the dealer had somehow omitted to send form XXXI and had promptly supplied the same to the check-post officer, there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and no penalty was deserved. For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order dated August 4, 1995, it is ordered that the dealer s Second Appeal No. 52 of 1993 against the levy of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act stands allowed and the penalty is quashed in its entirety. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the jurisdiction to invoke the provisions for enforcement of the liability of the firm on the partners. The view of the learned single Judge is, therefore, correct and hereby confirmed. Accordingly the writ appeals are dismissed. 18.. Before parting with this case we cannot refrain from expressing our dissatisfaction about the lack of effective defence in this case. We have to recall the distressing words of Sukumaran, J., in the very same matter as found in his expression in paras 46, 47, 48 and 49 of his judgment ( 1991 83 STC 377 (State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai). The matter had been adjourned thrice to enable the Revenue to prepare the case for an effective defence. But it is unfortunate that the department has not chosen to provide useful help to the court. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the 5th respondent in W.A. No. 1575 of 1995, namely, the Special Secretary to Government, Taxes (C) Department, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith. Writ appeals dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 358 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 39.. In my judgment it shows an attitude of reasonableness on the part of the petitioners who do not want that those who have been given exemption should be deprived thereof by reason of an order quashing the notification in its entirety. As observed during the course of the hearing, this is a heartening feature of the prayer of these petitioners who do not want all others who are recipients of the benefits of exemptions as victims of a blind order of quashing the impugned notification. For the above reasons all these petitions succeed with an order that the impugned notification dated October 27, 1992 (exhibit P1 in O.P. 2482 of 1993)gets quashed and set aside as prayed, regarding the following words except on the turnover relating to goods received on consignment, and/or branch transfer are declared as unconstitutional contrary to the provisions f article 304 of the Constitution of India. Order accordingly leaving all the parties to suffer their costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 357 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y to point out that thereby the purchasing dealer converts himself into the last purchaser in the State of such goods. The goods cease to exist or cease to be available in the State for sale or purchase attracting tax. In these circumstances, the purchasing dealer of such goods is taxed, if the seller is not or cannot be taxed. In this connection, observations of P.S. Poti, J., in Malabar Fruit Products Co. v. Sales Tax Officer 1972 30 STC 537 (Ker) 1972 Tax LR 2202 (Ker), which have been expressly approved by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Kandaswami 1975 36 STC 191 AIR 1975 SC 1871-discussed in detail in Part V may be referred to. It is not necessary to set out the said discussion here over again. 13.. In view of this discussion our answer to question No. 2 is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 14.. As a result of decision aforesaid we answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
-
1995 (12) TMI 356 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) to produce or cause to be produced any accounts, registers, cash memoranda or other documents as may be considered necessary by the Commissioner for the purpose. Therefore, the assessee if requests the respondents for summoning the record of Krishi Upaj Mandi, then he has right and the respondents are under obligation to summon the record in accordance with law. Likewise, it is also incumbent on the respondent to furnish all the documents which they want to utilise against the petitioner for assessment. It is for the fair-play as well as for the requirement of section 18 of the Act. 8.. Therefore, it is directed that the respondents make all the records which they want to use against the petitioner available to the petitioner and shall also summon the record. Validity of section 38-A of the Act is upheld. The petition is allowed in part. The order dated August 20, 1993 (annexure P17) and the order dated September 2, 1993 (annexure P20) are quashed. Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 355 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ure laid down for the detention and seizure of goods or vehicle. Be that as it may, this issue is almost academic now. The fact remains that an amount of Rs. 3,200 has been collected towards tax. At this stage, we need not go into the question whether the tax paid was voluntary or involuntary and whether the collection was justified. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered dealer. The relevant assessment year is already over. The petitioner would have filed the returns already. Suffice it to direct that the assessment shall be finalised within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order and while making assessment, the assessing authority shall grant adjustment of the tax collected from the petitioner on October 21, 1994. 5.. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. We consider it a fit case to award costs quantified at Rs. 400 (Rupees four hundred only) payable by the respondent to the petitioner. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 354 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the case, we find that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the case for fresh assessment in exercise of its inherent power under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The proper exercise of the power was to set aside the assessment, i.e., to annul the assessment and leave the matter at that. 11.. There was no difficulty in adopting this course if the Tribunal had carefully read sections 19 and 19-A of the aforesaid Act. 12.. In the circumstances we find that the order of remand was not proper and permissible under the law. We, therefore, answer the reformulated question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicant-assessee and against the nonapplicant/department. 13.. This reference application is answered accordingly but without any order as to costs. 14.. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal of the Court and signature of the Registrar in terms of section 44(5) of the Act. Question reframed and answered in the negative.
-
1995 (12) TMI 353 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut shall not be so covered if coupled pumps and motor are sold separately and not as centrifugal pumps. We, therefore, answer this question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against department if factually coupled sets and motor were sold as one common shaft as inseparable unit but in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the department if coupled pumping sets and motor were sold separately as distinct unit with distinct identity so as not to operate as centrifugal pumps, for different purpose. 16.. These reference applications are thus answered accordingly but with no order as to costs. 17.. Copy of this common order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of the Registrar of this Court under section 44(5) of the aforesaid Act. 18.. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 389 of 1986 and one copy each shall be placed in the record of connected cases for ready reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 352 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h should have been considered by the revisional authority by making proper enquiry that in fact whether the shop of the petitioner was closed and stock was seized or not, but the revisional authority has not looked into the matter and based its finding on previous year s taxable turnover. This inference drawn by the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority is not justified. The revisional authority should have considered the fact that the shop of the petitioner was closed during the relevant assessment year and goods were seized. There was no sale, therefore, there was no question of tax liability. 6.. Hence, in the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated September 30, 1982 (annexure A) and March 30, 1984 (annexure E) are set aside. The case is remanded back to the assessing authority to examine the matter properly and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. No order as to cost. Security amount, if any, be refunded. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... estion whether the sale of the bags to the export merchants was exempt, it was held that the sale of polythene bags was also exempt under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act . In the present case, there are facts on record to conclude that the polythene bags were also exported, according to the contract between the exporter and foreign buyers. The identity of the goods is established with regard to the polythene bags sold by the assessee and the polythene bags in which the barium sulphate was packed and exported by the exporter. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, on the sale for export of Rs. 7,21,337 in the assessment year 1979-80. Accordingly, the Tribunal was into correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Act with regard to the sale for export of Rs. 7,21,337. 10.. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. counsel fee Rs. 1,000. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 350 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... then decide the same one way or other in conformity with law. 13.. Ex consequenti, we answer the question No. (i) as noted above in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to this question, as agreed, the answer to other three connected questions is not necessary. The matter shall be at large and the Tribunal shall consider and decide the question in conformity with law consistent with facts and consistent with provisions of law bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court. 14.. These reference applications raising common questions of law are thus answered accordingly with no order as to costs. 15.. Copy of this common order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of the Registrar of this Court under section 44(5) of the State Act. 16.. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 126 of 1989 and one copy each shall be placed in the record of connected cases. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le. 6. The contentions raised in the written submission given by the assessee are also not correct. In fact as already pointed out, the turnover relating to sale of synthetic gems was not at all included in the returns. That being so, there was no question of claiming exemption under a wrong impression and in fact no such exemption was claimed. Similarly the contention raised under section 12(3) of the Act is also not correct, because the case in Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 STC 121 (Mad.) FB is not on the point. 7.. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed and the order dated December 18, 1990, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in so far as it cancels the penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act and reduces the penalty to 50 per cent under section 12(3) of the Act, is set aside. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 348 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anks were making payments to the petitioner for supplies made on behalf of their customers. The Tribunal found as an undisputed fact that the customers of the banks used the said sheets for poultry sheds and that admittedly the banks never put to use the said sheets. These are findings of fact and no question of law is involved in these findings. The language of the proviso in G.O. Ms. No. 172 is plain and unambiguous. The intention of the said G.O. is to give the benefit of the concessional rate of tax of 4 per cent only when goods manufactured in the State are sold to public sector undertakings/Government companies/co-operative for their own use or for their captive consumption. In the present case the Tribunal found as a fact that that condition was not satisfied. We therefore do not find any substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to admit these tax revision cases. The tax revision cases are therefore dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 347 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... paid taxes in respect thereof then no liability of tax be imposed on M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd., Lalitpur. As already stated the proceedings are for levy of sales tax and the contention of the present dealer-respondent was that it did not carry on any business of excavation and sale of materials itself and had assigned its right by power of attorney to M/s. Ishwar Mining and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., and it was this latter dealer who actually excavated the materials and sold them and was paying tax. In such circumstances the Tribunal s directions cannot be found fault with as the same does not mean that in case the present respondent is found to be actually carrying on any business attracting levy of taxes under the Act even then no action be taken against it. The direction of the Tribunal is limited in its scope and is legally correct. For the above reasons, I do not find any force in these revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 346 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he category of goods where the appellants claim that goods were sold and consumed outside the local area, we have no reason to dispute the correctness of the findings. Applying those findings, the law would require that the sector of goods in question would have to be exempted from the levy of entry tax. 6.. In the result, this set of appeals is liable to succeed. The impugned order dated July 30, 1991, passed by the revisional authority is quashed and set aside and the earlier assessment orders are upheld. In the circumstances of the appeals, there shall be no order as to costs. 7.. The learned advocate who represents the appellants points out that under the interim order passed by this Court they were required to deposit 50 per cent of the additional tax with the department which they have in fact done. Since it has been held that this amount is not due from the appellants, the department shall adjust the same against the future tax dues of the appellants. Appeals allowed.
........
|
