|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 686 Records
-
2006 (2) TMI 627 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 76, section 77, section 78 or section 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure." I also find that the appellant has paid the tax amount in full and also the interest amount which is about 30% of the tax amount. As such, any pecuniary advantage gained by the appellant is neutralised by payment of interest. The appellant’s case squarely falls under the provision of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant being a small taxpayer, the revised penalty imposed by the Commissioner is unduly harsh on him. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and restore the penalty amount under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the originally determined amount of ₹ 4,000 by the adjudicating authority. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2006 (2) TMI 626 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the ingredients contained in Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 were fulfilled and whether the requirements of the proviso appended thereto are satisfied?
-
2006 (2) TMI 625 - SUPREME COURT
Whether merely because the hirer had signed the agreement which permitted re-possession that would not give arbitrary power to the financier to take possession of the vehicle?
-
2006 (2) TMI 624 - SUPREME COURT
Whether encashment of the guarantees will create special equities (in particular, "irretrievable injury") in favour of the First Respondent?
Whether the Madras High Court erred in interfering with the bank guarantees and in granting injunction as sought for?
-
2006 (2) TMI 623 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow both the writ petition and direct the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) 5, Trade Tax, NOIDA, Gautambudh Nagar, respondent No.3 to forthwith refund ₹ 6,73,264/- after verification of the deposit to the petitioner within seven days from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the said respondent." Respectfully following the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court, order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the assessing authority is directed to refund the amount, recovered in pursuance of the order dated 31.03.2000 for the assessment year 1997-98, recovered during the pendency of the appeal other than admitted tax, if any within a period of seven days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Assessing authority is also directed to pay the interest in accordance to Section 29 of the Act. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2006 (2) TMI 622 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... committed was against national interest and recovery proceedings were initiated when the defaulters were alive. 13. We are therefore inclined to accept the view of the Division Bench of this Court in Devi's case, supra 1977 KLT 781) than the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tarak Nath Gayen's case, supra . Penalty was due when the defaulters were alive. Proceedings were initiated against them when they were alive but they did not pay. Penalty demanded is in connection with an offence which is against national interest and hence even if the defaulters are dead the proceedings can be continued against the personal assets in the hands of the legal heirs. Proceedings initiated against the assets of the defaulters are therefore valid. 14. We therefore find no infirmity in the proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of the amount by attachment and sale of the properties left behind by the defaulters. Appeals and the Writ Petition would stand dismissed.
-
2006 (2) TMI 621 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ief against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 6 to 9 against respondents 1 to 5 for arrears under the KGST Act. The writ petition, to that extent, fails. As already noticed, the total outstandings under the KGST Act appears to be much below even the upset price for the land and buildings brought to sale. On July 12, 2005 an order of temporary injunction was issued restraining respondents 1 to 5 from alienating or encumbering in any manner, the properties (movable and immovable) belonging to the first respondent and the personal properties (immovable) belonging to respondents 2 to 5. The said order will continue to govern the said respondents till exhibit P8 claim petition is finally disposed of. Having regard to the nature of the case, on production of a copy of this judgment, the Labour Court, Kollam, will consider expediting the final disposal of exhibit P8 claim petition No. 62 of 2005. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 620 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the petitioners, not to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings, for the reason that they have filed appeals or stay applications or they propose to file appeals or stay applications. The petitioners do not have a corresponding legal right also. So, the prayer of the petitioners for interfering with the revenue recovery notices made before this court, is ex facie unsustainable. In some of the cases, without invoking the statutory remedy, they have approached this court directly. In tax matters, a hierarchy of authorities, competent to grant remedies, is provided and thereafter, a provision to move this court in revision is also made. So, the writ petitions, challenging the assessment orders, need not be entertained. In view of the above position, all the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. The dismissal of these writ petitions is without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move the statutory authorities for appropriate reliefs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 619 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s not represent either sale price or the purchase price. In fact, a Division Bench of this court in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. State of Karnataka, decided on January 6, 2006 in Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 12 of 2004 has affirmed a similar view taken by the Tribunal on an earlier occasion, though there is no detailed discussion while affirming the said order of the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that, the value of the work entrusted to the sub-contractor has to be taken into consideration in computing the total turnover of the main contractor. Even though the main contractor has not supplied any material, the money paid by the main contractor to the sub-contractor falls within the definition of sale and thus attracts section 6B of the Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the authorities is legal and valid and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 618 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal is, therefore, indefensible. Additionally the Tribunal has committed another grave error of law. Having found that the third party was not produced for cross-examination, the only course left for it was to remit the matter to the assessing officer to produce the third party and afford an opportunity to the dealer-opposite party to cross-examine him. The law is well-settled that by setting aside an order which was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the proceedings do not come to an end. The matter should be restarted from the stage from where the principle of natural justice was violated. The upshot of the discussion is that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the revision is allowed by deciding both the questions posed above in favour of the department and against the dealer-opposite party with costs. The cost is assessed at Rs. 1,000 payable by the dealer-opposite party to the department.
-
2006 (2) TMI 617 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er the Act has to prove that his sales are not taxable. We are of the view, so far as this case is concerned, the assessee has not adduced any evidence to show that suppressed turnover or the turnover not disclosed had suffered tax at the point of first sale in the State. Accounts of the assessee also did not show that addition had suffered any tax. The assessee had, therefore, not discharged that burden showing that the added turnover had suffered tax. We are of the view, first appellate authority as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the suppressed turnover is entitled to get exemption since the conceded turnover had already suffered tax. Above being the legal position, we are inclined to allow this tax revision case, set aside the order of the appellate authority and the Tribunal and restore the order of the assessing authority. Questions of law raised are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2006 (2) TMI 616 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t that, strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. Applying the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court, we feel that the department should not have passed the impugned order, in view of the fact that the department had accepted that the empty capsules would attract tax at four per cent in previous year and also in subsequent year with regard to the same assessee. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
-
2006 (2) TMI 615 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r exercising power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by by-passing the appeal provisions and to permit the petitioner to approach this court without exhausting the remedy of appeal, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the petition, as the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the appeal that may be filed by him. Accordingly, I hold that in view of the effective and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and petition is relegated to the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted 30 days time from today to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. If an appeal is filed within 30 days from today before the appellate authority, the same shall be considered by the authority without reference to the period of limitation and shall dispose of the appeal on merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
-
2006 (2) TMI 614 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... atutory authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to have cautioned him regarding the payment of entry tax and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to impose any penalty on the petitioner under section 15 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act provides for a pre-decisional opportunity to show cause against imposition of penalty. Exhibit P4 is only a notice to file the return. As of now, it would be too premature a stage for this court to go into that question. It is directed that the assessing authority will finalise the proceedings without any delay and if any order of penalty is proposed to be imposed under section 15, the petitioner will be given opportunity of being heard, to show whether he had reasonable cause for not paying the entry tax within time. The period fixed as per exhibit P4 will stand extended, if the petitioner files return as called for in exhibit P4 within a period of three weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2006 (2) TMI 613 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... acts of this case. Though BIFR has passed an order for winding up of the petitionercompany under section 20(1) of the SICA Act, an appeal has been filed before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi, under section 25 of the SICA Act, as stated above and stay orders were passed by the AAIFR. Therefore, the respondent ought not to have taken coercive steps to recover the tax arrears from the petitionercompany. The respondent should have approached AAIFR and obtained its consent for initiating proceedings to recover the tax arrears. Admittedly, the respondent has not obtained any such consent. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W. P. M. P. No. 5525 of 2006 is closed. But however, it is open to the respondent to approach the AAIFR and get consent from the AAIFR and proceed further in the matter.
-
2006 (2) TMI 612 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e instance of the purchasers, the entry of the goods into local area was at the instance of the purchasers and therefore the assessee was not liable to pay the tax. The inference drawn by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to the material on record and the express stipulation contained in the agreement between the parties. From the terms of the contract, it is not possible to take the view that the entry of the goods was caused by the purchasers and not by the assessee. In that view of the matter the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The orders passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority require to be restored. For the aforesaid reasons we pass the following ORDER - (i) C. R. P. is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside. (iii) The order passed by the assessing authority, which is confirmed by the first appellate authority, is restored. (iv) No order is made as to costs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 611 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r had filed the above writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that in the light of the order passed by K. Govindarajan J in Sri Jalaram Trading Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Central II, Tirupur W.P. No. 17312 of 2001 dated October 29, 2001 - Madras High Court , the order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Mr. Manohar Sundaram, learned Government Advocate, took notice on February 21, 2006 and after getting instructions submits that the said judgment of K. Govindarajan J squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. Following the abovesaid decision, the order of the first respondent is quashed. When the assessing authority itself is having jurisdiction under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, he himself should consider the petitioner 39 s application filed under section 55 of the Act on merits and in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
-
2006 (2) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction in the matter?
Held that:- The Kerala High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, as no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order is set aside. Interim orders passed by the High Court shall stand vacated. The respondent shall now appear before the court concerned.
-
2006 (2) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. 2005 1 VST 1 2005 274 ITR 194 2005 4 RC 508 2005 182 ELT 33 was seized of the challenge to section 71A wherein, the hon 39 ble Supreme Court in its interim order had granted the petitioner a further period of 2 weeks from November 17, 2003, to file return and discharge the service tax due. Since the hon 39 ble Supreme Court has granted a further period of two weeks for filing the return and discharge the service tax liability, the interest liability, if any, on the appellants, will be from the period subsequent to the two weeks from November 17, 2003. In this case the appellants have deposited service tax liability on January 13, 2004, and February 1, 2004, and hence interest liability on the appellants will accrue from the expiry of two weeks from November 17, 2003, till the discharge of service tax liability by the appellants. In view of the above, interest has to be calculated as per above direction. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
2006 (2) TMI 608 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed when conflicting decisions are placed before a Bench, extracted a passage from Halsburys Laws of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding. 28.. The upshot of the above narrative, is that the impugned assessment and demand is sustainable in law and is thus upheld. The petitions being without any merit are dismissed. 29.. Before parting, it has to be observed that in view of the decision of the apex Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. 2001 124 STC 59 (SC) AIR 2001 SC 862, which in my opinion has by implication overruled the ratio in Rainbow Colour Lab 2000 118 STC 9 (SC) (2000) 2 SCC 385 and the resultant conflict in decisions rendered by the different Benches of this Court, it would be in fitness of things that the matter be placed before the honourable Chief Justice for appropriate order(s), if deemed fit, to refer the issue before a larger Bench for a binding resolution thereof. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
............
|
