|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 281 Records
-
1988 (2) TMI 462 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employees of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the Cantonment Act?
Held that:- As has been held by the High Court, the Central Government has power to frame rules about the transfer of the servants of the Board in exercise of its powers under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the Act within the region in respect of which it has jurisdiction. For example, the respondent could be transferred from one hospital of the Cantonment Board, Lucknow, to another hospital under the same Board. But that apart, the Cantonment Act does not authorise the Central Government to frame rules for transfer from one Cantonment Board to another.
The High Court was, therefore, quite justified in striking down rule 5-C of the Rules and in quashing the impugned order of transfer of the respondent. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 461 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all be deemed to require such person to pay the sum demanded or any part thereof, to the assessing authority. Therefore, if the amount is payable by the Vinedale Distilleries, it is open to the bank who has been served the notice under section 17 of the Act to act as indicated in clause (5) thereof. It is in this context the learned counsel for the bank prayed to release the properties attached under the Revenue Recovery Act on February 3, 1988. It is needless to mention, if the properties are attached, the recourse should be had to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for raising the attachment. If the bank is interested to vacate the attachment, it must take appropriate proceedings before the revenue authority to vacate the attachment. The writ petitioner-bank is, therefore, directed to have recourse to proceedings on the two aspects as indicated above. The writ petition for the aforesaid reason is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 460 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the same rate and at the same point of sale as the parts of tractor and tractortrailer). In our opinion, the opinion expressed by the Commissioner in the circular aforesaid appears to be reasonable and consistent with the scope of the entries in the First Schedule. Moreover, the said circular must also have been followed and applied in other cases by the assessing authority. The said circular, it shall be noted, was issued by the Commissioner on a representation made by the A.P. Agricultural Tractor Trailer Implements and Spare Parts Manufacturers and Dealers Association, Gudivada. It is also necessary to ensure uniformity of treatment to all similarly placed dealers. In the circumstances, we direct the Commercial Tax Officer to pass final orders in pursuance of the impugned notice in the light of the circular aforesaid. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each. This order shall govern all the three writ petitions.
-
1988 (2) TMI 459 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eedings under section 21, a valid service of notice under section 21 is necessary. Unless there is a service of notice under section 21, it cannot be held that there was any initiation of proceedings under that section. On mere issuance of notice but without service thereof, it cannot be said that the Sales Tax Officer had foreclosed the option he had under the Act to proceed under section 7(3). The findings recorded are that there was no service of notice under section 21 on the assessee. Thus being the factual position obtaining for the assessment years in dispute, in my opinion, the Sales Tax Officer was not debarred from proceedings under section 7(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed any returns for the years in dispute and the Sales Tax Officer was competent to take action for assessment under section 7(3) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, these revisions are without merits and are, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 458 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tal demand of tax and penalty due from the assessee. 5.. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee. 6.. It was urged before us on behalf of the assessee, relying on the decision in Babulal Mohanlal Kandele v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1981 47 STC 164 (MP), that as the assessee had complied with the provisions of section 38(3)(c) of the Act when the appeal was taken up for consideration, the appeal should not have been summarily rejected. Though this point was urged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not decided it. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion in that matter but it will be open to the assessee to urge that point before the Tribunal and it would be open to the Tribunal to decide that point, now that the case would be before it again for disposal according to law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1988 (2) TMI 457 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... several dates of issue of certificates by the Department of Industries and Commerce which were produced before the assessing officer before assessment order was passed, it would have been in the interests of justice if the assessing officer entertained the certificates and condoned the delay. But, it is urged by Sri H.L. Dattu, learned High Court Government Pleader, that the hands of the assessing officer are tied by virtue of the timelimit fixed in the notification. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is a fit case in which I should direct the respondent to receive the certificates and consider his claim for exemption under the Government Notification dated March 31, 1983. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the assessment made as per annexure K and the notice of demand issued as per annexure L are quashed. The first respondent is hereby directed to entertain the certificates and consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... even if such an additional security has got to be made, the petitioner could press for furnishing immovable property security in the place of making cash deposit. Section 21(2-C) of the Act, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, envisaged providing of an opportunity of being heard to the concerned dealer before he is called upon to furnish additional security as per section 21(2-B) of the Act. It is not claimed before me that the petitioner was afforded any such opportunity. In view of this, I am obliged to interfere in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings taken calling upon the petitioner to deposit additional security culminating in the order of the third respondent in the writ petition are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. This order shall not stand in the way of the concerned authority initiating action afresh strictly complying with the provisions of the Act in this behalf. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 455 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Here italicised. A perusal of the order under revision passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that it disposed of the assessee s appeal in a perfunctory manner and without dealing with the merits of the assessee s claim. In making an order on appeal, as stated earlier, the Tribunal is expected to touch briefly, the controversy involved and the reasons for its conclusion. I am not satisfied that the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, under revision can be sustained. In view of my above findings on first part of the assessee s contentions, it is not necessary for me to discuss the case on merits. The case is sent back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh. In passing the consequential order, as required under section 11(8) of the Act, the Sales Tax Tribunal shall restore the assessee s appeal, giving rise to this revision, to its original number and shall decide it afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 454 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y purchased may easily be determined under the Fifth Schedule and tax levied accordingly. Because of the omission to make the necessary provision in rule 5, it is not possible to hold that the Fifth Schedule is rendered inoperative. The Fifth Schedule which contains the relevant provisions should also be given the necessary effect. If such effect is given, we do not find any difficulty in determining the tax as specified in the Fifth Schedule. In the circumstances, we have to reject the contention of the learned counsel that the consequence of the omission to include the item jaggery between 11th January, 1976 and 18th March, 1981 is no tax could be determined and collected from the assessee on the purchase of jaggery. We, therefore, consider that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting both the contentions of the assessee. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 453 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f sale or sale of one lakh tonnes annually, after they have been put in a deliverable state, i.e., at the time of removal of the bamboo on payment of royalty. We hold on point No. 2 accordingly in favour of the petitioner. We accordingly hold that in respect of the bamboos of 20 lakhs tonnes allocated in the G.O. Ms. No. 681 dated 19th September, 1975 or the 20 lakhs tonnes of bamboos allowed to be felled, collected, stored and removed (bamboo then growing or likely to grow in future) during the period 1st October, 1975 to 30th September, 1995, as per the contract dated 20th July, 1977 there is no contract of sale or sale of bamboo falling within the definition of sale in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930 or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and that what is granted to the petitioner is only a profit a prendre or a right in immovable property. The writ petition is allowed as stated above. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition allowed. Here italicised.
-
1988 (2) TMI 452 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n, we hold that there is no merit in the appeals and in the writ petitions filed by the dealers and, therefore, their appeals and writ petitions are dismissed with costs and the crossobjection filed by the State are allowed with costs which is assessed to be Rs. 2,000 per appeal and is directed to be paid to the respondent-State by bank drafts within two months from today. The judgments under appeal are modified to the extent indicated. All interim orders made in these appeals are vacated and the amounts of securities furnished and/or deposits made by the respective appellants, will be payable to the sales tax authorities, subject to final adjustment thereof, as against the taxes payable by the respective appellants and the sales tax authorities shall deal with those matters in the light of our judgment in accordance with law. The appeals, writ petitions and the cross-objections stand disposed of accordingly. BABOO LALL JAIN, J.-I agree. Appeals and Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 451 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hould be allowed a fresh hearing and should be permitted to produce his relevant records before the Assistant Commissioner, at the hearing to be granted. The petitioner will be at liberty to ask for such an opportunity and the Assistant Commissioner will allow the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and to produce any relevant records. If, however, the petitioner does not receive any notice for fixing of any date of hearing, within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, then and in that event, the petitioner will be at liberty to move an application before the Assistant Commissioner, in writing through Advocate or personally, for fixing of a date of hearing. If no such application is made by the petitioner as within the time aforesaid, then the Assistant Commissioner will be at liberty to decide the matter on the materials on record, with him. Let a certified copy be issued as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 450 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods, or exempt a specified class of goods. It was also held that mere mention of the manufacturer does not introduce any infirmity into the notification. In other words, according to the said judgment, the absence of the words specified goods in section 9(1)(i) does not in any manner curtail the power of exemption inhering in the Government, as is sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the language employed in other sales tax enactments. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under article 133 of the Constitution. We do not, however, think that this case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, which in our opinion, needs to be considered by the Supreme Court. Oral request is accordingly rejected. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 449 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tted for the determination of the question. 5.. In this context, it would be necessary to recall the observations in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 597 at 606 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows Once an article is classified and put under a distinct entry, the basis of the classification is not open to question. Nothing whatsoever has, at this stage, been urged to demonstrate that the classification is not proper. If this be so, the contention canvassed cannot be upheld. 6.. These of course are tentative observations based on a prima facie view and nothing herein contained shall be construed to be final and/or binding either on the petitioners and/or the authorities who contemplate to hold an enquiry, and the petitioners will be at liberty to advance such contentions and make such submissions before the enquiry authorities as they desire. In the result, the petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 448 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appear that the purchasers were registered as dealers. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the sales amounting to Rs. 80,775 were subjected to tax at 8 per cent without regarding them as inter-State sales. The assessee appealed against the reassessment unsuccessfully, and on further appeal to the Tribunal the matter was allowed and the reassessment cancelled. From the facts stated before us, it would appear that the dealers who purchased the goods were registered although there was some procedural delay. It is stated, by the time the reassessment proceedings were taken the purchasers were, without dispute, registered dealers, and the so-called defect should not have been taken note of. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the defect pointed out by the assessing authority is not grave so as to reopen a completed assessment. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 447 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from all the authorities including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, under the Act. The above tax revision case is, therefore, filed. Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that no excise duty was in fact paid by the petitioner on the value of the goods supplied to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board for the reason that whatever duty was first levied and collected was later reimbursed. We need not advert to this question in detail as it is noticed by us from the bills issued by the petitioner to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, that the petitioner collected sales tax, turnover tax and tax on tax not only on the value of the goods supplied but also on the basic excise duty and special excise duty levied thereon. The petitioner cannot retain the amount so collected and claim exemptions. The tax revision case is absolutely without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 446 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner against the tax payable on sales of finished products. While declaring the legal position as above, the petitioner is permitted to furnish full details relating to his claim for set-off to the appellate authority before whom the appeal preferred against the assessment is pending. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that a formal appeal was filed before the appellate authority which is still pending. We direct the appellate authority to scrutinise the claim of the petitioner with reference to the records and books of account maintained by the petitioner, and allow appropriate set-off of the tax, if paid, in respect of the purchases of scrap between 1st April, 1984 and 20th July, 1984. It is needless to observe that the tax paid in respect of purchases of scrap till 31st March, 1984 would be allowable under the first G.O. Ms. No. 498 dated 20th March, 1984. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition ordered accordingly.
-
1988 (2) TMI 445 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the said figure of Rs. 60,000 for the entire period, it cannot be said that the sales exceeded Rs. 50,000 for the period from October 5, 1972 to March 31, 1973. As such the assessee cannot be held liable to pay any tax for the sales effected by him during the period from April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973. Both the revisions deserve to be allowed. In the result, the revision No. 214 of 1986 is partly allowed and it is held that the assessee-appellant was liable for registration with effect from October 5, 1972 and not with effect from April 26, 1972. The revision No. 213 of 1986 is allowed and it is held that the assesseeappellant was not liable to pay any tax for the sales effected by him during the year 1972-73. The orders of the assessing authority and also of the Tribunal are modified to this extent and the common order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated January 31, 1977 is restored. Revision No. 214 of 1986 partly allowed. Revision No. 213 of 1986 allowed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 444 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al. It was neither shown that the observations were wrong and incorrect. The assessee has filed his own affidavit giving the details of the goods received from the gold and silver smiths and the purchases made by him on the day of survey. The question decided was the question of fact and from the order of the Tribunal no question of law arises. It cannot be a question of law that the material placed by the assessee should not have been believed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, this revision has no force as it does not involve any question of law so it is hereby dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 443 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was introduced by way of amendment rendering such sales by such contractors as first sales. It is next contended by Sri Venkatanarayana that charges of transport incurred by the assessee and passed on to the Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills, Rajahmundry do not form part of the taxable turnover. This submission also is without substance as the definition of turnover contained in section 2(s) of the Act is wide enough to take within its ambit charges of transport incurred by the assessee. The tax revision case is, therefore, without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
........
|
