|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 290 Records
-
1990 (3) TMI 344 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t assessment periods has in fact been issued to the petitioner on February 27, 1989. We, therefore, do not find any justification in not granting a certificate of registration to the petitioner on his application filed on December 12, 1986. 10.. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of the Sales Tax Officer dated March 6, 1987 (annexure B) and the orders dated December 29, 1987 and February 23, 1988 (annexures F and H) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax are hereby quashed. The respondents/sales tax authorities are directed to issue a certificate of registration to the petitioner on the basis of his application dated December 12, 1986, in case the petitioner is found to have satisfied all the requirements of section 16 of the Act, read with rule 8 of the Rules. Under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The amount of security, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 343 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... yet been admitted. If the appeal is entertained, then the writ petition may not be admitted on the ground of the right to appeal being exercised by the applicant. Lastly, it was argued that when no affidavit was given by the applicant, the application for condonation of delay could not have been legally accepted. The purpose of filing the affidavit along with application is only to ensure the correctness of the averments made in the application, but that does not mean that the application in no case can be accepted, if not accompanied by an affidavit. In this case the proof by way of certificate obtained from the counsel was filed and there is no reason to disbelieve that evidence and, therefore, I see no good reason to refuse the condonation of delay. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The Tribunal s order dated 22nd July, 1989, is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits. No order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 342 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods to be inserted in the certificate. In view of the specific prayer of the petitioner in the application for amendment, and in view of the fact that the petitioner never assailed the certificate that was granted to it on August 5, 1985, notwithstanding our conclusion on point No. 1 above, and notwithstanding the fact that the authority had no jurisdiction to specify the class or classes of goods in which the dealer carries on business at the time of grant of certificate of registration other than those applied for by the dealer, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the revisional authority to the effect that the amendment will be effective from the date on which the amendment was allowed and not for any period prior to the receipt of the amendment application. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 341 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he applicants. But the general principle of law does. There is no question of estoppel or waiver. A general agreement between the parties pursuant to which tax is levied and paid, would not bind the assessee if the demand itself is not authorised by law. On the facts, however, we find that the levy and payment were not unauthorised. Therefore, the allegation of payment under a misconception of law is not supported by the materials on record. 14.. Hence, upon a consideration of all the pros and cons of the matter, we do not find any substance or merit in the applications. The sales subsequent to June 1, 1987 are exempt. But there is the liability for the period prior to that and the notices relating to such periods are not liable to be quashed. There is no question of refund. 15.. The applications, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 340 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee had escaped assessment entitling him to issue notice under section 21 of the Act. There is a settled law that jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act cannot be exercised by any authority merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures or on the basis of the satisfaction reached by some other authority. To invoke section 21, the assessing authority himself should have had the reason to believe and that could be possible only when he himself would have seen the record leading to the conclusion that the turnover of the assessee had escaped assessment. For the reasons, the order of the Tribunal dated February 28, 1989 cannot be sustained. The assessee clearly raised ground No. 10 in the memo of appeal in this behalf, but the Tribunal failed to discuss it and record a clear finding thereon. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed and the proceedings initiated under section 21 for the assessment year 1978-79 are quashed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 339 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng effect to the said provisions until and unless the legislature prescribes guidelines for exercising the power conferred thereunder and defines the expressions prevailing market prices and abnormally low occurring in section 14-B of the Act. We, however, make it clear that as and when the legislature chooses to define the said two expressions and indicate the method and manner of determination of turnover with reference to the prevailing market prices, section 14-B of the Act can be enforced from such date. In the result, the impugned notices issued by the respondent-authorities in all the writ petitions are quashed and the respondent-authorities are restrained from reopening the assessments on the ground of variation between the prices charged by the assessees and the alleged prevailing market prices. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. We, however, make no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each of the writ petitions. Writ petitions accordingly allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 338 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ercised in the manner provided. It would not be open to the revising authority to assume that power. The power is limited for assuming jurisdiction to revise the order, though once the jurisdiction is properly assumed, there is no further limitation while exercising the power. The above decision is followed by this Court in the case of Babulal and Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur 1978 41 STC 89 and in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Indian Tube Company Ltd. 1981 47 STC 448. In the present case, we are concerned with the assumption of jurisdiction. Since the method adopted by the Sales Tax Officer for computing the resale claims under section 8(ii) cannot be held to be erroneous, the Assistant Commissioner cannot be said to have acquired valid jurisdiction under section 57. 10.. In the result, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (3) TMI 337 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, held that the turnover relating to gunnies ought to be taxed at the same rate as the contents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner following the decision of this Court in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1987 64 STC 398. Since the decision of this Court has been explained and modified by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, it is now necessary to verify the factual position, viz., whether there was an agreement of sale of gunnies, either implied or express. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal to examine the turnover relating to gunnies in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner shall also be entitled to urge the contention relating to part of the said turnover being taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, and its effect, if any, on the said question. No order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 336 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a Ordinance IX of 1989 as also section 3 of the Maharashtra Act II of 1990 is stayed. (ii) The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioners the tax paid under the old section 13AA together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as directed by the Supreme Court, within 4 months after verifying the correctness of the particulars of such tax which are set out by the petitioners in exhibit B annexed to each of the petitions. (iii) The petitioners are at liberty to pay tax as from December 6, 1989, under protest, under the new section 13AA. The tax so paid shall be subject to the outcome of the petition, and shall be recovered by the respondents on condition that the respondents shall refund the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the petitions. The respondents apply for stay of this order. Since the respondents have been granted 4 months time for making payment, there is no need to stay the order.
-
1990 (3) TMI 335 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... factual aspects. The Tribunal has to consider whether there was a separate agreement-express or implied for the sale of bottles and the packing material used while selling the liquor. If it is found that there was no separate agreement for the sale of bottles/packing material, the turnover relating to bottles/packing material will also be charged at the rate applicable to the contents. In such a case the turnover would be one , i.e., one relating to liquor. If, however, it is found that there is a separate agreement for the sale of bottles/packing material, the orders passed by the lower authorities will be valid. In the circumstances, the orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the appeals to the extent indicated above. The tax revision cases are accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions accordingly allowed. Cases remanded. See Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1989 74 STC 379.
-
1990 (3) TMI 334 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ork of laying mosaic tiles will have to bear the loss. The contract was for laying of mosaic tiles at a particular rate for a particular area. The fact that the customer has agreed to supply water, electricity, support labour, etc., as rightly pointed out by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United Mosaics v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1983 53 STC 124, cannot detract from the nature of the work, if otherwise it is an indivisible works contract . The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, as noticed above, support the case of the assessee/appellant. 22.. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the contract in question is works contract and the view taken by the Board of Revenue that it is a divisible one, cannot be sustained, and accordingly we set aside the order of the Board of Revenue, and restore the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The tax appeals are accordingly allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evidence. He also claimed false turnover account of purchase from M/s. Parag Traders, when in investigation it was found that no such purchase has been made. The proprietor of M/s. Parag Traders filed an affidavit before the authorities stating that he had merely supplied bills. The said affidavit is also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. 5.. Though these statements in the affidavit-in-reply are sought to be denied in the rejoinder, we are satisfied that this in any event is not a case warranting interference in our writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. 6.. Learned Counsel, Mr. Saraf, appearing for the sales tax authorities submitted that pursuant to the investigation which has been made and which is not yet complete, show cause notice will be issued and opportunity will be given to the petitioner to reply thereto. 7.. In all the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere. This petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 332 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e and distinct fields and, therefore, both are capable of being obeyed. The result of this view is that section 22(1) of the Central Act would not protect the properties of industrial companies from being proceeded against in exercise of the power under section 13-A of the State Act. 21.. Before parting, we may say that we are conscious of the fact that sick industrial companies must be allowed to be rehabilitated as early as possible in the public interest also because of ill-effects of sickness on production, employment, locking up of investable funds of banks and financial institutions and so nothing should be done to thwart their revival attachment of their own money (garnishee proceeding produces this result) does undoubtedly affect them adversely. We would have felt happy if the two Acts read together would have allowed us to stop garnishee proceeding under the State Act against them, but it has not been possible to do so. R.C. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 331 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as granted vide a letter dated November 30, 1984. Thereafter, extensions of time have been granted by the concerned authority for the retention of the seized documents from time to time. In this view of the matter, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rendered devoid of any merit. However, it may be stated that the respondent has fairly stated in the counter-affidavit that they were ready to provide xerox copies of the seized documents to the petitioner. We are of the view that the documents have been retained for over a period of five years, which is unduly long. It is, therefore, directed that the authorities may retain the photostat copies of the seized documents by taking signature of the petitioner on the same and return the originals to the petitioner, within a month from the date of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. But there will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (3) TMI 330 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ape the personal liability to pay the tax. At the time the tax liability became enforceable, i.e., after the conclusion of the assessment proceedings and at the time when the demand notices were served and the amount claimed in the applications became due, the petitioners were partners of the firm. Viewed from any angle, it is difficult to exonerate the petitioners from the personal liability to answer the claims made in the two applications. 41.. Added to that, section 15(2A) of the Act which came into force with effect from 18th November, 1983, clearly lays down that where any firm is liable to pay any tax or penalty or any other amount due under the Act, the firm and each of the partners of the firm shall be jointly and severally liable for such payment. 42.. I, therefore, hold that the orders impugned in these petitions are perfectly valid, legal and proper, calling for no interference. The petitions cannot succeed and, therefore, they are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 329 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... result of the enquiry will be that the petitioners had recovered the sales tax from the customers then the petitioners shall not be entitled for the refund thereof. 8.. Consequently, I hereby partly allow the writ petition and it is held that from February 3, 1983, when the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment came into force till March 31, 1987, i.e., the definition of sale under section 2(o) of the Act was amended with effect from April 1, 1987, the supply by way of or as a part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink, whether or not intoxicating, where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, was not included and therefore, no sales tax was payable thereon under the provisions of the Act. So far as the refund is concerned, it will be in accordance with the observations made in the preceding para. Costs made easy. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 328 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ically mentioned those items in the entry to remove scope for any doubt. In other words, the items so included with the prefix including would be of the type about which there could be some doubt as to whether they are covered or not by the main entry. The item about which there is no scope for doubt or there is comparatively less scope for doubt would accordingly stand automatically covered by the main items in the entry. Considering mill board from this point of view, we have no doubt in our mind that while strawboard, cardboard, duplex and triplex boards may or may not be covered by the expression paper of all other kinds except for their specific inclusion in the entry, there can be no doubt about mill board which is nothing but thick and rough paper and which is and can be used for packing purposes. 12.. In the above view of the matter, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (3) TMI 327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d also constitute agricultural machinery. This Court s decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jayesh (India) Agencies 1984 57 STC 128 was also relied upon by Shri Patil. In that decision, seat covers and covers for doors, centre pillars, cowl pads and rear glass shelves, etc., were held to be accessories to the motor vehicles. In its decision in Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 1987 64 STC 420 (Bom), where the Tribunal had found that the refrigeration compressor sold by the assessee was primarily used as a part of a refrigeration system but it was also used as a part of a air-conditioning plant, it was held that the refrigeration compressor was not a part of a air-conditioning plant. The above decisions have obviously no bearing on the question involved in this reference. 8.. In view of the discussion above, the question of jaw referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1990 (3) TMI 326 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... der section 5(2)(a)(ii), it ought to have proved that in commercial parlance, these goods were being treated and understood as steel castings and not otherwise. We have no hesitation in holding that the applicant has failed at all stages to show that in commercial parlance these goods were treated and understood as steel castings. We are unable to agree with Mr. Bose that by production of the declaration forms treating these goods as covered by section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it was proved that in commercial parlance the goods were understood as steel castings. 5.. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the authorities below rightly disallowed the claim of the applicant under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the 1941 Act and there is no reason to interfere with the orders of those authorities. In the result, the application fails, and is dismissed without costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 325 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... t then has enjoyed an unlawful benefit but, in any case, it cannot be proceeded against under section 5B yet that cannot be helped, more so because section 5B is regarding imposition of penalty which after all takes at least a partial character of a punishment. In such a case, unless all the ingredients are proved by the Revenue, it is not possible to allow it to proceed against the applicant. 7.. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the notice issued on March 12, 1984, under section 5B proposing to impose a penalty, cannot be sustained, since all the conditions are not fulfilled in this case. Accordingly, the application succeeds. The said notice dated March 12, 1984, is quashed and the respondents are restrained from proceeding against the applicant under section 5B in the circumstances of this case. The case is thus disposed of. No order is made as to costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
........
|
