|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 444 Records
-
1996 (2) TMI 521 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the appellants were the consignors and consignees in regard to their respective consignments. Having examined the documents, the appellate authority satisfied himself that there was no intention to avoid tax and consequently levied a nominal penalty of Rs. 1,000 in each case for not explaining the facts to the check-post officer. The said order did not call for revision. There is no error in the order of the appellate authority nor is it prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The mere fact that the matter was not explained to the checkpost officer properly was not by itself sufficient to revise the order of the appellate authority. In fact, that has been taken note of by the appellate authority in levying nominal penalty of Rs. 1,000. Therefore, the order of the revisional authority cannot be sustained. 7.. Consequently, these appeals are allowed. The order of the revisional authority is set aside and the order of the appellate authority is restored. Appeals allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 520 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act with regard to the taxability of the goods in question for the assessment year 1994-95. The very purpose of issuing show cause notice to the petitioner-company by the first respondent is to give it an opportunity to explain its stand and it is for the company to file its objections. In view of the above discussion, at this stage, in our view, it would not be appropriate to pronounce upon the merits of the case. In our view, the writ petition is premature and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. However, we leave it open to the petitioner-company to file its objections to the show cause notice within ten days from today taking all pleas open to it in law including the pleas raised in this writ petition. If such an application is filed within the period specified above, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 519 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fit to reserve the liberty to the applicant to raise such question in identical case before the Tribunal and on unsuccess before this Court to secure proper direction to the Tribunal for answer by this Court. 8.. Lord Mansfield in John Wilkes case (1770) 4 Burr 2528 stated in classic terms that discretion means sound discretion guided by law and governed by rule, not by humour. 9.. As the expression used in section 44(4) is may , we find it fit to exercise the discretion to close these cases on account of smallness of the amount. 10.. In the result, we decline to answer the question and also decline to call upon the Tribunal for making any additions or alterations. 11.. These reference applications thus stand disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. 12.. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 348 of 1991 and its copy shall be placed on the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 355 of 1991 for ready reference. Applications disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 518 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... it. In the application for revision itself, the following question of law has been stated whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-assessee can avail and entitled for the benefits under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 , as required under section 86(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. On the basis of the facts and figures furnished by the respondent, the Tax Board has held that the case of expansion is well proved. It is a finding of fact. It is at the instance of the learned Deputy Government Advocate, the Tax Board ordered for the verification of the statistics provided by the respondent vide para 14 of the order. Verification of the facts and figures were not necessary as the same were not doubted by the State Level Screening Committee as is clear from the minutes of the meetings. The order of the Tax Board is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The application for revision is summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 517 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 60 per cent of the dues is on the higher side and seeks a reduction. It is not in dispute that the order, exhibit P5, passed by the second respondent is a discretionary order and that the second respondent passed that order on a perusal of the petition and after considering various points raised in support of the petitioner by the learned counsel. This Court will not interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the second respondent more so when the order itself shows that the said discretion was exercised after consideration of all the materials. I see no reason to interfere with the order, exhibit P5. This original petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssment or on any other basis. It is also not the case of the respondents that it was discovered that any of the way bills that were lost by the petitioner were misused by anyone on the basis of which the Commercial Tax Department incurred any loss. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that the demand made is highhanded, arbitrary and without any pretence of authority of law. It is unfortunate that the respondents seek to justify on the basis of the misuse of way bills by some dealers in general and not by the petitioner but that cannot form the basis for the present visitation on the petitioner by the respondents. In the circumstances, the writ petition has to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed with costs. The respondents shall also pay a further sum of Rs. 1,000 towards exemplary costs in view of the manner in which power is sought to be exercised by them arbitrarily, without any semblance of legality and in gross violation of the rule of law. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 515 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1986 (B.R. Phosphate, Meghnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) and Misc. Civil Case No. 304 of 1986 (M/s. B.R. Phosphate, Meghnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) by this court on November 6, 1995 this Court is not bound to answer the reference. In (1993) MPLJ 462 (Jamunadas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) it is held as under For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper-books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this Court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the department quantified at Rs. 150. 7.. As the assessee has not appeared and has also not taken the appropriate steps, we dismiss this reference in default with no order as to costs. 8.. The Tribunal be informed accordingly. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tentions of the learned counsel for the department being against accepted legal principle, to make a reference to the honourable High Court is not necessary. 5.The counsel for the applicant was unable to show any invalidity or infirmity in the approach or in the eventual conclusion. The rules are meant only for carrying out the purposes of the Act. No rule can control the section of the Act. The provision contained in the Act is to be given full play and the rights and liabilities of the parties have to be regulated on the basis of the relevant provisions. So viewed, we find that the Tribunal committed no error of law in taking the view that it took. 6.. Accordingly, we find that there is no referable question of law for making the direction to the Tribunal to state the case. We, therefore, hold that this application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. We do so, but leave the parties to bear their own costs of this application as incurred. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 513 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll remain operative till it is cancelled by a competent authority. The said certificate having not been cancelled by the competent authority so far, remained operative and that being so, no valid assessment can be made by the assessing authority for the period for which the eligibility certificate has been granted. 5.. The Trade Tax Officer while making recommendation to the Commissioner made an assessment order for the assessment year 1988-89, covered by the eligibility certificate without awaiting decision of the Commissioner, since the Commissioner has disapproved the basis on which the assessment order dated 27th March, 1993 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) has been made and since the eligibility certificate is still operative, we are of the view that the impugned assessment order is not sustainable. 6.. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th March, 1993 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) is quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 512 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ould only be limited to the extent as provided under those provisions and there can be no justification for extending it. Unless it is clearly provided, it is not permissible to impose a supposition on a supposition of law. It is not permissible to sub-join or tack a fiction upon the fiction. The contention that the fiction envisaged under sub-rule (9) of rule 68 of the Rules be projected to mean that the service on the State Representative or the Commissioner was a service upon the assessing authority of the order vacating the stay order or of the order passed by the Tribunal, cannot be accepted. 16.. There is no dispute if the limitation for making the reassessment order in dispute counted from the date the order of the Tribunal was served on the assessing authority, the reassessment order was made within time. 17.. For what has been stated above, the revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 511 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st judgment assessment under section 18(4) of the Act does not necessarily mean enhancement in turnover in view of the provisions contained in rule 33(3) as quoted above. The aforesaid rule itself manifests that the estimate of taxable turnover of the dealer should be fair and proper. The best judgment assessment cannot be arbitrary and has to appear to be bona fide and fair and proper. The question of enhancement is not the essential ingredient. 11.. It is not contended before us that the assessment reached was not capable of being categorised as fair and proper estimate. That being so, we take the view that the Tribunal was justified. 12.. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the applicant-department. 13.. This reference application is thus, decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 14.. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal immediately. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1996 (2) TMI 510 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spective effect, in the absence of specific words giving retrospective effect, if the words are capable of being construed as retrospective the mere fact that it affects the period earlier to the passing of the rule, cannot be a ground to hold the subordinate legislation bad in law. In the instant case, the liability to pay interest existed even earlier to the impugned demand. The quantification of interest was provided under the rule by prescribing the rate of interest in rule 20-A which was made after period in question. But the rule read in that context provides that the interest would be payable from the date the tax became due but was not paid. Thus, it is clear that the impugned demand levying interest on delayed payment during the period September 27, 1984 to December 19, 1985 is valid. 21.. For the aforementioned reasons, we dismiss the writ petition, but, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 509 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... aid judgment and order of this Tribunal has been rejected by the Supreme Court of India. But the decision in Boroline case is not of relevance in the present case and like the case before the Gujarat High Court referred above the Boroline case decided by this Tribunal is not of any assistance for the present case. In the present case we are not required to determine whether Nycil medicated powder for the care of skin is a drug or a cosmetic. The only question as formulated by us in the present case is whether the said article is a specified goods in the Schedule to the Act of 1972. We have already answered the question in the affirmative and in our view the respondents have rightly levied tax at three per cent ad valorem on Nycil powder under the Act of 1972. 11.. In the above view of the matter the writ petition fails. It is dismissed without costs in the circumstances of the case. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 508 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ferred to. In our judgment, the decisions recorded by the learned single Judges are not correct and stands overruled. A Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment reported in 1988 70 STC 203 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. Housing Board) has taken the view which has found favour with us. The banking companies cannot be treated as dealers under section 2(1)(k) of the Sales Tax act while disposing of the securities for realisation of the loans advanced. The action of the Commercial Tax Officer in serving notice upon the appellant-bank directing to furnish information of the disposal of securities, was without any jurisdiction and is required to be quashed. 8.. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated July 24, 1992, delivered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18751 of 1988 is set aside and the notice issued by respondent-1 stands quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 507 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he law laid down by the Full Bench. The Division Bench in Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. State of Punjab (C.W.P. No. 2300 of 1993 decided on 19th October, 1995) has held that levy of purchase tax on the paddy cannot be termed as a purchase tax on rice exported by the petitioner. 20.. In our opinion, the reasoning given by the Full Bench and the Division Bench in upholding the purchase tax on the paddy cannot be termed as erroneous requiring reconsideration of the issue afresh by a larger Bench. We also find that in the light of proviso to section 4-B read with section 4(1), the petitioner cannot avoid its liability to pay purchase tax. 21.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are held to be without substance and, therefore, the same are dismissed. The interim orders passed in favour of the petitioner stands automatically vacated. Now the respondents shall be free to take further proceedings for realisation of tax, etc., from the petitioner. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case and in the light of the principles laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court, the turnover in question represents the unfructified sales and, therefore, the tax paid on those unfructified sales is liable to be returned, and the rejection on the ground that the claim was not made in time treating the same as sales returns , cannot be sustained. Thus, inasmuch as the goods sold in the year 1976-77 is taxable at single point and inasmuch as the same goods were taxed in the assessment year 1975-76, the plea put forward by the assessee for deduction on the turnover of Rs. 23,731 at 8 per cent and of Rs. 3,004 at 5 frac12 per cent from the turnover assessed to tax in the assessment year 1976-77 is acceptable, especially in view of the above cited decision of this Court. Therefore, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the claim put forward by the assessee in this regard. 5.. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 505 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... are beneficial provisions intended to rehabilitate a sick industry by implementing the scheme and the process of such rehabilitation should not be hindered by recourse to distress proceedings at the instance of creditors during the period of implementation of the scheme. Since in the instant case the consent from the Board is not available before initiating the distress proceedings, the impugned notice in reference 3115/88/A1/ 24(3) Sl. No. 10/95-96, dated November 23, 1995, is set aside in so far as it relates to assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. It is made clear that distress action may be taken by the Revenue after complying with the provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 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 28th day o February, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 504 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. 21.. In my opinion, the provisions contained in sections 42 and 44 are prospective in nature and, therefore, on the basis thereof the authority appointed under the Act had no jurisdiction to demand books of accounts prior to July 1, 1993. 22.. In view of the above, I hold that the provisions contained in sections 42 and 44 so far those relate to transporters are bad in law and ultra vires. Even otherwise also the authority s direction to produce books of accounts, etc., prior to July 1, 1993 is illegal, bad in law and, accordingly, it is set aside and quashed. 23.. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, parties shall bear their own costs Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 503 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was held that the activity of construction is a condition precedent not only for starting business of manufacture or its expansion but also for continuance of business of manufacture and such activity of construction cannot be said to be the business of the assessee so as to make him liable to pay the tax on purchase of building material used in such building activity. This Court, then held that no purchase tax was leviable. 9.. In view of the aforesaid position, we find that the point stands concluded by the aforesaid decision. Nothing substantial is urged to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. 10.. Ex consequenti, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 11.. This reference application is, thus, decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 12.. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal for further action, as may be necessary. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (2) TMI 502 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... that they are knitted products. If the meaning of the words hosiery goods , as widely interpreted would include all knitted garments, the samples produced like mufflers, topies, pullovers, socks, etc., satisfy the requirements. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it is made clear that the knitted goods dealt with by the members of the petitioner-association are eligible to be covered by entry No. 20, Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It is made abundantly clear that unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the assessing officer that the goods dealt with by him are knitted wear, that they are not made out of wool wholly or partly, the benefit of this declaration will not be available to them. 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 this the 23rd day of February, 1996.
........
|
