|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 403 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arassment to the dealer. 8.. In this connection, Shri Majumder has submitted on instruction that other dealers have collected the tax from the purchasing departments and paid the same to the Sales Tax Department. We would like the petitioners also to do so. To this the concerned department would not raise any objection on the ground of limitation. If the petitioner succeeds in this venture, the tax realised by him shall be paid to the Sales Tax Department. If, however, any resistance is given by the department concerned, it is apparent that it would be inequitable to ask the dealer at this stage to pay the tax from his own pocket inasmuch as when the agreement was entered into with the department concerned. Sales tax was not leviable and so at that stage the dealer could not have asked the department to pay the sales tax. This observation of ours would not however apply to sales to private persons. 9.. In the result, the petition is allowed as stated above. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 402 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there was a distinct and separate agreement in respect of these charges as separate and distinct from the sale agreement. Once this is so, there is no principle upon which these charges can be said to be outside the purview of the turnover. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the bill discounting charges are includible in the turnover of the assessee. The same is the position with respect to hundi stamps. 2.. The second question relates to bank charges. The Tribunal s finding is that these charges are collected uniformly by the assessee-dealer in respect of goods sold by it for the purpose of effecting delivery of the goods. It is also found that unless the purchaser paid the bank charges, the assessee would not have parted with the goods. It is evident that the principle referred to in the preceding para equally applies to these charges. The tax revision cases accordingly fail and are dismissed. No costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT
How should the court examine an award to find out whether it was a speaking award or not?
Held that:- In the instant case, the High Court seems to have fallen into an error of deciding the question on interpretation of the contract. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error. It may be stated that if on a view taken of a contract, the decision of the arbitrator on certain amounts awarded, is a possible view though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court in the manner done by the High Court in the instant case.
Appeal allowed. The High Court, in our opinion, had no jurisdiction to examine the different items awarded clause by clause by the arbitrator and to hold that under the contract these were not sustainable in the facts found by the arbitrator.
-
1989 (2) TMI 400 - SUPREME COURT
Interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Held that:- There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple.
Thus the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly installments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for.
-
1989 (2) TMI 399 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d in overruling the contention that the extra charges recovered were not as interest but as hire charges. (ii) Answer declined to be given. (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that, (a) the initial payment should be included in the amount on which depreciation is to be allowed, and (b) the registration fee and insurance charges should not be included in the basic price for calculation of taxable turnover. (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in interpreting the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K.L. Johar 1965 16 STC 213, in holding that the sale price in respect of hire-purchase transactions on the maturity of the transactions would be the original price/basic price plus interest thereon for half the period of delayed payment. 11.. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 398 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not shown to be illegal, justifying a reference under section 44 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed these applications under section 44(2) of the State Act for requiring the Tribunal to make a reference. 4.. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that in the context of the aforesaid facts the following common question of law does arise in the two cases decided by the Tribunal by its common order dated 24th February, 1981 Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax to pass final order under section 39(2) of the State Act? 5.. Accordingly both the applications under section 44(2) of the State Act are allowed and the Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid common question of law to this Court for its decision. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of these cases. Applications allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 397 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... given a proper meaning, having regard to the context in which it is used, and the purpose which was sought to be served by the said G.O. Evidently, the said G.O. was issued with a view to encourage the manufacture of handmade paper . The expression paper has a wide meaning, which is evident from the very entry 143. It would, therefore, be proper and appropriate to hold that paperboard falls within the expression paper as employed in G.O. Ms. No. 206. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in the view it took. It may also be noticed that after the insertion of entry 143, the exemption G.O., G.O. Ms. No. 206 would be relatable to the said entry alone. If so, it may probably be just and proper to understand the expression paper in G.O. Ms. No. 206 in the sense in which paper is referred to in entry 143. We, however, desist from expressing any final opinion on this aspect. Tax revision cases, accordingly, fail and are dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 160. Petitions dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 396 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y that such a claim can be made even before the assessment order is made. In such a situation, necessary orders will be passed in the assessment order itself. The proviso to rule 6(b) only says that such a claim can also be made within one year of the receipt of the assessment order. Since the claim in this case was made at the proper time, it ought to be considered on merits and orders passed. For the above reasons, we direct that the turnover of Rs. 9,140.70 relating to returned goods should be given deduction in the assessment relating to the assessment year 1976-77. Necessary orders shall be passed by the Commercial Tax Officer concerned, forthwith. It is, however, made clear that the said deduction cannot be claimed, nor can it be granted in the assessment relating to the assessment year 1977-78, or for that matter in any other assessment year. Tax revision case is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 395 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the objections of the assessee and also after examining the question whether the assessee has collected tax on the goods in question, will decide the question whether the semia sold by the assessee was manufactured out of maida purchased from resident dealers in the State or whether the commodity semia was purchased by the assessee from the resident dealers in the State and in turn sold it as semia to other. Depending upon the conclusion the assessing authority will arrive after an enquiry, the assessment will be finalised applying the appropriate rate of tax. If the Deputy Commissioner finds that the assessee has collected tax on the said goods, from his purchasers, the assessee will not be entitled to any relief. But if it is proved that he has not collected the tax, he shall be refunded the tax, if any, collected from him which was not due from him in law. The tax revision case is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 394 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liability of tax. The Tribunal has nowhere recorded that the assessee either filed any return or admitted any tax liability. In view of the said fact I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous and the order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7th December, 1988, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad, is directed to register the appeal of the applicant for the assessment year 1983-84, without asking the applicant to deposit 10 per cent of the admitted tax as fixed by the Tribunal and dispose of the appeal according to law on merit. The parties shall bear their own costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant within forty-eight hours on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 393 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the opinion that so long the view taken by this Court in Atma Ram Misra s case 1990 77 STC 232 1987 UPTC 547, is not overruled by a larger Bench, the view taken in that case is binding on the sales tax authorities and the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the applicant on the said ground. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7th December, 1988, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad Range, Ghaziabad, is directed to register the appeal of the applicant for the assessment year, 1982-83 (Centre) without insisting on the deposit of 20 per cent to be made by the applicant and dispose of the appeal according to law on merit. The parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. A copy of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 392 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and pays warranty charges thereof. But so far as four-year warranty is concerned, it is optional with the purchaser. It is open to the purchaser either to take a four-year warranty by paying warranty charges therefor or not. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that so far as warranty charges for one-year warranty are concerned, they are includible. But the warranty charges for four-year warranty are not includible. We think the Tribunal was right in holding so. It is clear that so far as four-year warranty is concerned, it is a distinct and separate agreement or contract, as it may be called. The four-year warranty agreement is distinct from the sale agreement. The sale of refrigerators is not dependent upon taking fouryear warranty. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in saying that the warranty charges relating to four-year warranty are not includible in the turnover. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... opinion that they are not genuine. In the further appeal before the Tribunal the same evidence was again sought to be adduced by filing a separate petition. The Tribunal accepted the explanation offered by the assessee for not filing the C forms before the assessing authority. It would of course have been proper if the Tribunal had given reasons more elaborately. But we are satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, there has been no violation of regulation 11 of the aforesaid Regulations. We may also mention that the filing of C forms is governed by rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The proviso to the said sub-rule empowers the receiving of the said forms beyond the stage prescribed in the said sub-rule. It has also been held that even the appellate authority has power to receive the said forms by way of additional evidence. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 390 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds). Placing the above construction would be consistent with the object and purpose underlying the placing of the said goods in the Third Schedule. The learned Government Pleader submitted that at all points of time blended yarn was treated as different commodity than cotton yarn. According to him blended yarn is treated as general goods, but second and subsequent sales were exempted by an exemption notification issued under section 9 of the Act. This aspect, in our opinion, is not very much relevant because we have held that blended yarn with 10 per cent non-cotton substance is still cotton yarn within the meaning of entry 10 of the Third Schedule, i.e., prior to July 1, 1985. The tax revision cases accordingly fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each. This order does not preclude the authorities from looking into and passing appropriate orders in the light of section 33-BB of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Petitions dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 389 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . I have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. It is true that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the taxable turnover regarding tilhan, agarbathi, etc., should not have been increased but no relief has been given to the assessee in the operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal and as such, in my opinion, the turnover disclosed by the assessee regarding tilhan and agarbathi to the tune of Rs. 47,723.56 should have been accepted and the amount enhanced to Rs. 55,000 by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) should have been reduced to the said amount. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside and it is directed to redetermine the taxable turnover of the assessee in the light of the observation made above. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition partly allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 388 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng that it should be taxed as poultry feed under entry 80. The same is the situation with respect to shell-grit. However it is made clear that if it is found in any case that this mineral mixture can be put to any use other than mixing with poultry feed, it would be open to the assessing authority to take a different view. So far as wheat bran is concerned, it is not disputed before us that it falls under entry 60(c) of the First Schedule. The tax revision case accordingly fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 387 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. So it has to be held that section 14(4)(cc) is merely clarificatory, and even without the incorporation of such a provision, the concerned authority had the power to assess the correct amount of tax payable in a case where exemption or deduction was wrongly granted. Hence this point is held in favour of the department. The record does not disclose that the finding of the assessing authority at the time of reassessment that the turnover pertains to first sales in the State is not correct. Hence the said turnover is liable to tax. The record also discloses that the assessing authority exercised power under section 14(4) of the Act on the basis of the material de hors the record. So the order of reassessment dated 10th January, 1980 has to be confirmed. In the result, the revision case is allowed, and the order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside, and the order of reassessment dated 10th January, 1980 is confirmed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 386 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut of consideration. The expression tax concession is significant. It signifies the benefit derived by the assessee by virtue of the notification in payment of tax. When the sales tax and additional sales tax and surcharge could be properly levied if such exemption was not allowed, the aggregate amount under these three counts are to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the total concessions. We are, therefore, of the view that it is open to the assessing authority to compute the tax including the additional tax and surcharge for the purpose of granting exemption in accordance with the notification, but there cannot be a demand for surcharge in case the assessee is eligible for the exemption from payment of sales tax. In this view, we allow the tax revision cases, modify the order of the Appellate Tribunal and direct the assessing authority to recompute the tax payable for the three assessment years in the light of what has been stated above. Petitions allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 385 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... heets and glassware would not be liable to tax under entry No. 36 of Part II of Schedule II of the Act. In the absence of any other entry, they would be liable to tax under entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II of the Act, as has been held by the Tribunal in its order dated 12th May, 1983. The view we are taking is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1981 47 STC 359. 4.. In the light of our discussion aforesaid, our answer to the question referred is as follows In the facts and circumstances of the case, glass sheets will be assessed to tax under entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and not under entry No. 36 of Part II of Schedule II of the Act. 5.. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1989 (2) TMI 384 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ith the return, but filed them before the assessment order was made. The question in this tax revision case is whether the said declarations can be received or not. We are of the opinion that the requirement in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 30-A, viz., that the declaration in original should be filed along with the return, is not mandatory. Inasmuch as these forms have to be issued by the manufacturer, and because the production of such declaration is not within the exclusive control or power of the dealer, it would be more appropriate to construe the said words as not obligatory. We clarify that these forms can be filed at any time before the order of assessment is made. This Court has taken a similar view with respect to C forms, in which case also a similar retirement was provided by the Rules (vide Rajeswari Stone Polishers v. State of A.P. 1983 52 STC 268). Tax revision case, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
........
|
