|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 515 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 1064 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was clearly not available in the instant case where the revisional authority was required to interpret section 19(1) not section 39 of the Act. 8.. I thus conclude that the period of limitation of 5 years prescribed under section 19(1) for the purpose of second reassessment was to be computed from the date of the order of original assessment made under section 18 not from the date of order of first reassessment. In view of the matter, the reassessment proceedings in this case initiated by the notice (annexure C) were clearly barred by limitation. The order of reassessment dated October 17, 1984 (annexure D) was thus vitiated in law. The order (annexure E) passed in revision also deserves to be quashed. 9.. In the result this petition is allowed. The notice (annexure C), and orders (annexures D and E) are all quashed. No order is, however, made as to the costs of this petition. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1063 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... we find that there is no escapement from the penalty provision inasmuch as the section clearly says that penalty shall be levied while making the assessment on the basis of incorrect or incomplete return and the quantum of penalty is as prescribed in the slab under the Act. No wilful act is necessary to levy penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Act. We find that the correct slab as indicated in section 12(3)(b) has been applied in the present case and there is no case to interfere. Thus, on the whole, we find that the Appellate Tribunal has not erred in law in levying the tax and penalty in this case and in such circumstances, there is no case to interfere and accordingly the tax revision case is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 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 15th day of March, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1062 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 74. 1979 VI The West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979. 33.. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, such applicability of amendment of the Constitution of India and formation of Taxation and Tribunal will be applicable in this present case. Therefore, taking into totality of the circumstances of this matter, I allow this writ petition. Notification under challenge stands quashed as a result whereof proceedings under such notification cannot be sustainable. Therefore, the same is also liable to be quashed and quashed. The seized articles will be returned accordingly. 34.. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and order made, considered and refused. Let urgent xerox certified copy of the judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties within 15 days from the date of putting requisites. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1061 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax evaded cannot be quantified, the maximum amount of penalty is Rs. 5,000. Therefore, only Rs. 5,000 should have been awarded as penalty. The penalty orders which finally merged in exhibit P6 order are modified and maximum Rs. 5,000 need be paid by the petitioner as penalty. Excess amount, if any, paid by the petitioner may be refunded to the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1060 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom September 8, 1998. In other words, items which were tax-free were withdrawn from Schedule B retrospectively with effect from September 8, 1998 and brought to tax with effect from that date. This, in our view, is impermissible. A notification withdrawing tax-free items could operate only with effect from the date when it was published and not from any date prior thereto. Reference in this regard may be made to M.C. Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer, Kesinga 1987 64 STC 298 (Orissa), Dhannilal Labhchand v. Sales Tax Officer, Seoni 1988 69 STC 117 (MP), Kitchen Aid v. State of M.P. 1998 110 STC 109 (MP) and Baldev Raj Hari Kishan v. State of Punjab 1999 114 STC 223 (P and H). In this view of the matter, the impugned notification is quashed only to the extent it is retrospective in operation. It is, however, made clear that the notification shall be operative with effect from the date on which it was published in the official gazette, i.e., February 18, 1999. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1059 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. While considering the case of G.I. pipes vis-a-vis item 26A which related to water supply and sanitary fittings at the relevant time, apex Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. G.S. Pai and Co. 1980 45 STC 58 1979 KLT 871 held that in the absence of any finding of materials to the contrary brought on record by the Revenue the conclusion of the Tribunal have to be approved. It may be noted that in T.R.C. Nos. 62 and 63 of 1997 disposed of on May 21, 1998, i.e., N.R. Somasundaran Nair v. State of Kerala 1999 112 STC 214 1999 (1) KLT SN 40 it was observed by a division Bench of this Court that the words water supply in entry 217 are used in juxtaposition of the words sanitary fittings , meaning thereby, that the former will have the same meaning which the latter expression has, while dealing with the case of plastic water tanks. Conclusions of the Tribunal are correct and no interference is called for. Applications dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1058 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... d by the Appellate Tribunal, the penalty is a corollary to the assessment made under section 12(2) of the Act and the quantum of penalty is in the slab with reference to difference in tax determined and tax paid by the dealer. Thus, the quantum of penalty fixed by the Appellate Tribunal having regard to the re-determination of the taxable turnover and tax payable by the dealer and tax paid by the dealer is in accordance with the law and no interference is called for. 25.. In fine, the Appellate Tribunal has neither decided erroneously nor failed to decide any question of law involved in this case and in such circumstances, we find that there is no case to interfere and accordingly the tax revision case is dismissed at the admission stage itself. And this Tribunal doth further order that 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 March, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1057 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Full Bench decision. Let us take it that the appeal is allowed partially in so far as the levy of groundnut oil is concerned. However, the petitioner gains nothing unless he is able to get the refund of tax. As the petitioner is not in a position to aver and establish that the tax was not passed on to the buyers, ultimately, he would not get any benefit. The jurisdiction under article 226 need not be exercised to promote an exercise in futility or to clear the way to the petitioner to make an unjust claim for refund of the tax to the detriment of public exchequer. When unjust enrichment is the ultimate aim of the dealer, the court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to encourage and lend support to such move. 8. Thus, viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He has indulged in speculative litigation after having invited the assessment on the basis of consent, long back. The writ petition is dismissed without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1056 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ority which is fact finding authority also. 6.. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that the order of remand passed by the Tribunal was justified and the Commissioner had powers in the facts and circumstances of the present case to revise the order dated September 7, 1989 passed by the assessing authority. However, the Tribunal has committed error in remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to hold further inquiry and to this extent the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The revision, therefore, is partly allowed. 7.. The order of the Tribunal so far as remanding the matter for further consideration is concerned is upheld. The order of the Tribunal remanding the matter to the revising authority is, however, set aside and it is directed that the matter shall be remanded to the assessing authority to pass appropriate order after complying with the directions given by the Tribunal. Petition partly allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1055 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are used in execution of such works contract, but shall not include such portion of the aforesaid amounts as may be prescribed. 7.. It would, therefore, appear from above that the materials used in the improvement of roads being indivisible part of a works contract for any assessment year prior to July 12, 1984, could not be taxed under the law as was then in force. In my opinion, the impugned assessment has been wrong and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartala, as first appellate authority and of the Tripura Sales Tax Tribunal impugned in these writ petitions cannot be sustained. 8.. In the result, I allow the writ petitions and set aside the impugned assessment and orders passed by the above two authorities and remit the matter back to the Superintendent of Taxes (respondent No. 4) to reassess the turnover in the light of the decision as above. 9.. No order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1054 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e no objection certificate and a copy of the said certificate is also placed on record by respondent No. 1. This shows that respondent No. 1 was very much aware of the fact that such a certificate was given by Gujarat Pollution Control Board. 9.. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, we direct respondent No. 1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-company had already obtained no objection certificate from Gujarat Pollution Control Board for the period up to March 31, 1994 and had manufactured drugs up to October 1996. Respondent No. 1 shall also consider the contents recorded in the memo of this petition and further affidavit filed by the petitioner and thereafter shall issue eligibility certificate or pass appropriate reasoned order on or before May 31, 2000. 10.. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. An interim relief which was granted earlier shall continue to operate till June 30, 2000. Rule made absolute.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1053 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... significant. It may be for the reason that the assessee should not be left without the remedy to obtain interim relief pending disposal of appeal by the Tribunal against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner. If the Appellate Deputy Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner had passed an order in exercise of their respective powers, the assessee would be in a position to seek stay pending such appeal either from the Joint Commissioner or from the High Court. But, in a case in which the Joint Commissioner exercises the power of revision under section 20(2), if there is a bar against grant of stay by the Tribunal, the assessee will be disabled to obtain interim relief from any forum. This reinforces our conclusion that the bar would not apply to a case of appeal preferred against an order of the Joint Commissioner under section 20(2) of the Act. We, therefore, see no reason to admit this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1052 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ensure that there is no intermixing of fluids, which would not be tolerated by such industries. Entry 81 of the First Schedule to the Act excludes only specifically mentioned items elsewhere in the Schedule. As rightly argued, heat exchangers have not been mentioned specifically in the First Schedule to the Act. The generic expression of parts and accessories would not cover heat exchangers, just because heat exchangers are also used as accessory in generators. In that view, we hold that the classification of heat exchangers in so far as the relevant assessment year is concerned, would be under entry 81 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, taxable at 8 per cent. Accordingly, the tax revision case is allowed. 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 10th day of March, 2000. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1051 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1, 1993 to any person other than a registered dealer being the second/ last sale shall be liable to be taxed as provided in Schedule IV of the Act of 1993. This is more so because the provisions in the Act of 1993 show that the tax on sale of component parts of the motor vehicles and trailers has been hiked to 14 per cent with a break-up thereof at the rate of 8 per cent and 6 per cent in case of first sale made to a registered dealer and in case of last sale made to the ultimate consumer, respectively. Therefore, the levy of 6 per cent as tax payable at the last point of sale introduced with effect from July 1, 1993 appears to be unavoidable if the sale at the last point is effected on or after July 1, 1993, even though the total tax to be paid on such sale of the goods purchased prior to July 1, 1993 would amount to 18 per cent. 13.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1050 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shows the expiry of two years from the date of issuing. 4.. In the present case all other details required to be accompanied and disclosed by the transporter while carrying goods from one place to another were apparent from the documents accompanying goods and declaration in the form giving undertaking to pay tax in respect of transaction in question was also there by the buyer. 5.. There is no dispute that on the expiry of date the form does not become non est but very same form can be validated and given life for a further period by the concerned officer. 6.. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tax Board were justified in drawing conclusion about want of mens rea to evade or avoid payment of tax on the part of the respondent-dealer and in not sustaining the penalty levied by the assessing officer. 7.. Accordingly this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1049 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on can be laid down. The initial burden of establishing correctness of books of accounts and return filed by an assessee is on him. If satisfactory, clinching and acceptable proof to substantiate figures in the return filed is forthcoming, then the revenue, if it intends to depart therefrom, should in its turn bring such materials on record, as would prove the contrary. As to what would be the measure of acceptable evidence on either side is a varying factor depending upon the facts of each case. No rigid or inelastic formula can be laid down. When accounts are not reliable, best judgment assessment can be done. To sum up if accounts are not fully posted at the time of inspection, unless contrary is established by the assessee, the inevitable conclusion is that accounts are not properly maintained and such an adverse inference can be drawn. Reference is answered accordingly. The matter be placed before the division bench for hearing on merits. Reference answered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1048 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observations made above, we are of the view that the supplies made to central prison cannot be subjected to tax. 7.. The assessing authority has very casually without discussing the sales made to other institutions had proceeded to pass the assessment order. The word Hotel was considered by one of us (Singhal J.,) in Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Luxury Taxes 1999 115 STC 338 (Kar) elaborately and considering the observations made therein the canteen cannot be considered as hotel. Since in the entry only supplies to the hotel have been subjected to tax, the order of the revising authority cannot be considered to be in accordance with law. 8.. By providing an exception to hotel in the entry, the legislative intent appears to be that without this exclusion even use by hotel would have been considered as domestic use. But for the exception in the entry, supplies to hotel cannot be treated as for domestic use. Appeals are accordingly allowed. Appeals allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1047 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the whole or any part of the turnover of the dealer has escaped assessment to tax or has been underassessed or has been assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at which it is assessable under the Act . The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the notice under section 22. In the instant case also a debatable question arose before the assessing authority if the refined oil was covered by entry 31(a) or 31(b) of the notification of 1993. Such question was a debatable question and, therefore, could not be said to be a mistake apparent on record. The view taken by the authorities below was not correct. For this reason also, the impugned order passed by the authorities below cannot be sustained. In view of the discussions made above, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the assessing authority as affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal are set aside and those passed in the original assessment order are restored. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1046 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ant to be used by the State Government for the purpose of filtering of the tubewells in the State of Tripura, delay in releasing the goods detained will eventually affect the interest of the State and the people in general. Before parting with the records, I would again express my desire in the larger interest of the public and also on consideration of the fact that ultimately the tax will be deducted at source by the concerned executive engineer, an endeavour shall be made by all concerned to resolve the matter amicably for release of the vehicles. The petitioner shall also be at liberty, in the event he fails to comply with the above provisions, to make an application to the Commissioner of Taxes and to the concerned executive engineer for resolution of the controversies. This observation, however, will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner, if any, in the main writ petition. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1045 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... x, U.P.) can be ruled out, because entry 4(xiv) itself talks of wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets . In 1995 99 STC 87 (SC) (Vasantham Foundry v. Union of India) makes it clear that only rough unmachined cast iron can be brought under 4(i) of the Second Schedule. In 1982 51 STC 257 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Gopal Nair and Sons) supports the Revenue. The following observation at page 258 is apposite. The question as to whether a particular article or commodity falls within the scope of a particular expression used in the Sales Tax Act has to be determined with its nomenclature in commercial parlance. 12.. We confirm the findings of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in all respects. The tax revision cases are, accordingly, dismissed. 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 22nd day of March, 2000. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
