|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 428 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a definite finding whether the aforesaid P.V.C. wires and cables were also, apart from being manufactured and sold for that purpose, adapted specially for electric motors, or whether they can be said to be generally adapted in the sense that they were made useful for electric motors and for some other principal articles. As the Tribunal has not recorded this finding, we do not decide as to under which entry the sales would fall, i.e., whether they can be rightly described as accessories of electric motors covered by entry 16(2) or electrical goods covered by entry 41. We merely decide that the Tribunal was wrong in deciding that the aforesaid wires and cables were taxable as electrical goods and not as accessories of electric motors. We direct the Tribunal to decide the case in accordance with this judgment after recording a finding on the point whether the aforesaid wires and cables can be said to be specially or generally adapted for electric motors. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 427 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee from the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the same. Moreover, it would have been only a piece of evidence and that too a very weak one. If what was stated in the certificate was true, the assessee could have produced enough material from its own account books or bill books in support of it. The assumption which is challenged by Mr. Pathak is really no assumption made by the Tribunal but that is an inference drawn by it on the basis of the material with respect to the price of one gunny bag of groundnuts and the price of gunny bag itself. Even if that inference cannot be said to be correct, merely on the basis of that inference, it cannot be said that the finding which the Tribunal arrived at is perverse. 4.. As the question which is referred to us is really a question of fact and not a question of law, we decline to answer the same. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 426 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... should be excluded. The total of those two sums is Rs. 3,61,645. When that amount is deducted from the total investment of Rs. 13,36,796.61 (this figure was mentioned by respondents), the balance comes to Rs. 9,75,151.61, i.e., below Rs. 10 (ten) lakhs. That being the position, the applicant s prayer for eligibility certificate should be allowed. 12.. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The appropriate Assistant Commissioner, i.e., respondent No. 1, is directed to issue eligibility certificate to the applicant within four weeks from this date under rule 3(66) of the 1941 Rules on the basis of the impugned applications dated April 28, 1980 and December 2, 1980, treating the investment on plant and machinery up to June 30, 1980 as amounting to Rs. 9,75,151.61. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. No order is made for costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 425 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on. There is no gain saying that the petitioner has been working under a bona fide belief that there was only one order. The petitioner has been under a bona fide belief prosecuting the remedy available against the said order. 3.. There is no mala fide attributed to the petitioner nor anything has been attributed to it that by this delay the petitioner would have gained anything. No motive for filing the appeal at belated stage had been attributed to the petitioner. Keeping these facts and circumstances in view and the non-speaking order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time-barred is quashed. Bona fide prosecuting a remedy though under a wrong belief is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The petitioner having made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the same is condoned. 4.. The respondent is directed to decide the appeal on merits. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 424 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onsolidated price and that the freight charge was separate. In the face of this material, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to exemption on the turnover of Rs. 1,71,475 which was covered by E1 certificates on the ground that it was exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is perfectly sound and valid. The assessing authority, without reference to any material or evidence, returned a finding against the assessee on mere surmises and conjectures, and we find it difficult to accept the finding of the assessing authority in preference to the finding recorded by the Tribunal after proper and correct appreciation of the evidence and the material on record. Consequently we find that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and calls for no interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. The tax revision case consequently fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 423 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... such exemption. After 2 frac12 years the said order of exemption was revised suo motu on the ground that there was an erroneous understanding of law on the part of the granting authority. The result will be that assessment proceedings already completed for the relevant period will have to be revised, imposing further liability on the assessee, who did not realise sales tax for the impugned period. This obviously will prejudicially affect him for no fault of his. Considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to hold that in the interest of justice and fair play suo motu revision should not have been resorted to. The impugned order of revision by the Additional Commissioner should, therefore, be set aside. 7.. In the premises, the application succeeds and is allowed. The order of Additional Commissioner dated May 4, 1990, is hereby set aside. No costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as. Annexure I to the said resolution dated March 31, 1981 mentions 10 backward districts and the backward talukas identified by Hathi Committee. In that annexure Vadodara is not shown as a backward district and Padra taluka of Vadodara district is not shown as a backward taluka. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the Government resolution dated March 31, 1981 cannot be accepted. 11.. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated March 8, 1985 and April 16, 1985 are quashed and set aside and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to issue deferment certificate to the petitioner upto an upper limit of Rs. 25 lacs for the period between October 20, 1983 and October 19, 1990. It is clarified that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 shall issue the deferment certificate, if all the conditions are satisfied. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Petition partly allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 421 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... cuted during the year ending March, 1974. We do not propose to deal with that question, as it is not necessary to do so in view of our foregoing conclusions. 14.. Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order dated March 22, 1982 and the revisional order dated September 6, 1983 of the Tribunal below in respect of the disputed transactions with the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Purulia. We direct the respondents to modify the assessment order dated January 15, 1979 for 4 quarters ending March, 1975 in terms of this judgment in respect of the disputed transactions with the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Purulia and to refund the sales tax realised from applicants for the said transactions. We direct that the refund should be made within four months from this date. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. The application is allowed. No order is made as to costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 420 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dressed state, should be considered to constitute a single commodity having regard to the provisions contained in sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has considered the matter at length referring to a catena of authorities and upheld the claim that the said articles constitute a single commodity for the purpose of liability under the Central Sales Tax Act. The position that the judgment referred to supra squarely governs this case in favour of the assessee is not controverted by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). Consequently, following the view expressed in T.C. No. 896 of 1981, dated March 13, 1991 T. Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 82 STC 355 (Mad.) , we set aside the order of the Tribunal and accept this revision. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 419 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y estoppel as there can, indeed, be no estoppel against a statute. Like a plea of res judicata, equity also has no place against a taxing statute. An assessee cannot plead either to defeat the tax liability otherwise envisaged and permitted by the relevant taxing statute. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority, in the circumstances rightly reassessed the assessee for the relevant assessment years by treating the submersible electrical pumps to fall under item 99 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal fell in complete error in applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision of the Tribunal, as we have earlier demonstrated, is based on a thorough misunderstanding and a wrong approach to the case. We, accordingly, allow the tax revision filed by the State and set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We, however, make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 418 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e principles laid down in those decisions and decide the question regarding the taxability or otherwise of the transactions of the appellant. It may also be made clear that so far as the quantum of turnover is concerned, the assessing authority is bound to accept the quantum fixed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 1,91,116 which has also been accepted by the Joint Commissioner to be correct. In respect of the addition sought to be made by the Joint Commissioner in a sum of Rs. 50 to the taxable turnover under the category of section 7-A the assessing authority is directed to consider the same with reference to the relevant materials, the correctness of the claim and render its conclusions also after hearing the assessee. 5.. The tax appeal is consequently allowed, and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority to be considered afresh in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... test should be as to how those in public in this country in their normal dayto-day activities deal with and handle a particular commodity. The construction in a popular or commercial sense means going by the meaning ascribed by those who everyday use or deal in such commodity in this country. Thus viewed, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal identifying and equating the chicory or chicory seeds with either vegetable or vegetable seeds . We hold that the sales turnover of chicory seeds will not be eligible for exemption as vegetable seeds within the meaning of the notification contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1982, Revenue dated April 22, 1960. Consequently, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand and is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 9.. In the result, this tax revision case is allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 416 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... late Assistant Commissioner. Keeping in view the nature of the transaction, the case was required to be remanded to the assessing authority for its fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1980 45 STC 212. We, therefore set aside the order of the Tribunal, and accepting this revision, remit the case to the assessing authority for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1980 45 STC 212 (SC). 3.. Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that in view of the 46th Amendment to the Constitution of India the assessee would not be liable. It will be open to the assessee to raise all such points before the assessing authority at the time when the fresh assessment proceedings are taken up. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1980, well within the period of limitation of five years. This submission of the counsel for the appellants also fails. 13.. Learned counsel tried to make a submission that while reassessing the transactions in question, the figures adopted show that they were imaginary rather than real and based on records. Even on this aspect, no substantial material worth consideration has been brought to our notice to sustain such a factual plea notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings before us are appeals. In the absence of proper, sufficient and relevant material, even if it be an appeal, we cannot render any findings on such basic factual averments and claims and we are not persuaded to agree with the plea of the counsel for the appellants on this ground also. 14.. For what all has been said above, we see no merit in the above tax appeals which, therefore, fail and shall stand dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 414 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t sold by the lessee of the coupe could not be termed as firewood. If the buyers of those coupes sold firewood that would not entitle the assessee to the benefit of exemption as his sale to the buyer was only forest trees. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, fell in error in holding that firewood had been sold by the assessee. That was misappreciation of the evidence, plain and simple. In our opinion the finding of the Board of Revenue, in the facts of the case that since the assessee had not worked the coupes and had sold them as such and it was only the buyers who had felled the trees and sold them, the assessee would not be entitled to the exemption is sound and does not call for any interference. Consequently, since the sale of forest wood in coupes would be sale of goods as per the plain phraseology of section 2(j) of the Act, the order of the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 413 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x had been collected as such on the said transaction and it has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the taxable turnover. ............ The legal position, therefore, seems to be clear that for claiming deduction in terms of section 7(1)(b) and 7(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, all that is necessary is that there must be evidence, not necessarily only the sale memos, to indicate that apart from the sale value of the goods sold, an amount had been collected by way of sales tax as such. If such evidence is available with the dealer, and it is found by the department to be a piece of acceptable evidence, the claim must be allowed. We would only add that the case on hand is based on stronger foundation, in that even the sale bills indicate that the amount collected is including sales tax . 6.. We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rendered in T.A. No. 274 of 1982 dated June 12, 1990. The tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 412 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urchase tax under section 7-A of the Act. 3.. In the instant cases, there is no dispute that the tin sheets were not consumed in the manufacture of tin containers, but were only used . They did not lose their character, nature or identity. The Tribunal found on facts that the identity of the goods remained unchanged and that the character of the tin sheets was not destroyed or altered by their use in the manufacture of tin containers. It was also found on facts that the tin containers can be again manipulated or fabricated into tin sheets . Since the disputed assessment periods were prior to January 1, 1987, that is prior to the amendment by the Amendment Act 78 of 1986, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of the authorities below. The answer to the questions posed in the earlier part of this judgment, therefore, has to be in the negative. Consequently, these tax revision cases fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the user test cannot be applied in order to levy tax on Vee belts. This reference appears to be State of Mysore v. Kores (India) Ltd. 1970 26 STC 87 (Mys). 20.. In the statement of objections, it is not disputed that the petitioners are exclusively dealing in Vee belts of all types though Vee belts are purchased and used by the customers for transmission of energy from the motor for various purposes. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that the test must be one of user must therefore be rejected. 21.. For the above reasons, the clarification issued by the Commissioner in Circular dated January 19, 1988 (annexure E) is declared as not binding. 22.. In the result, the further proceedings pursuant to the proposition notices wherever stayed by this Court and the assessment orders wherever they are completed, are quashed. The tax paid pursuant to the interim order made by this Court in any of these cases shall be refunded to the petitioners. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 410 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... sum of Rs. 5,000 is to be adjusted against assessment to be modified, keeping in view the observations in this judgment relating to the declaration form in question. 16.. The result is that the application is allowed in part. The order dated March 24, 1975, passed by the respondent No. 3, the appellate order dated April 8, 1976, passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated June 11, 1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 are modified. The respondent No. 3, the Commercial Tax Officer, China Bazar Charge will allow concessional rate of tax under section 5(1)(aa) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in respect of the seven bills, numbering 21 to 27, for sales made during the period from January 23, 1972 to February 25, 1972 and modify the assessment accordingly in respect of the applicant for the four quarters ending March 31, 1972. We make no order as to costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 409 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ale at Vallabh Vidyanagar. 18.. As regards the third question we are of the opinion that it is a question which requires, in fact, reappreciation and reassessment of findings of fact reached already by the Tribunal. The question as to whether there was or was not any bona fide plea on the part of the applicant-company is not a question of law but it is purely a question of fact on which all the three authorities have reached concurrent finding. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to answer the third question it being purely question of fact, and we, therefore, refuse to answer the third question. Mr. Mody, learned advocate for the applicant, has also not seriously disputed this position. 19.. In the result, we answer the question No. 1 in negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department, the second question in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. References answered accordingly.
........
|
