|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 464 Records
-
1998 (4) TMI 521
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh clarified that tax deduction at source is not required for earth work excavation if no earth is brought from an outside source. The tax deduction rate for material transferred or used in works contract is either 1% or 3% based on the nature of work. The court directed authorities to follow these guidelines for tax deduction. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage.
-
1998 (4) TMI 520
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule appended to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Validity of the clarification dated August 3, 1989, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
3. Legitimacy of the assessment orders and demand notices issued under Section 28(6) of the Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Re. Issue 1: Constitutionality of Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule
The petitioners contended that Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule, which pertains to the levy of tax on the full service and maintenance of instruments, equipment, appliances, or plant and machinery, is ultra vires Section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and Article 366 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the maintenance contracts involved no transfer of property in goods and thus should not be subject to sales tax.
The Court held that the tax under Section 5-B of the Act is levied on the taxable turnover of transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts. The Court clarified that Entry 21 must be read in conjunction with Section 5-B, which means tax is only levied where there is a transfer of property in goods. The Court also emphasized that the nature of each contract must be examined to determine if there is a transfer of property in goods. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the contention that Entry 21 is ultra vires and upheld its constitutionality.
Re. Issue 2: Validity of the Clarification Dated August 3, 1989
The petitioners challenged the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which stated that maintenance of computers involving the transfer of goods falls under Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule and is liable for tax.
The Court found that the clarification was in conformity with the provisions of Section 5-B and Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule. The clarification merely reiterated that contracts involving the transfer of property in goods during maintenance are subject to tax. Thus, the Court held that the clarification was valid and dismissed the petitioners' challenge.
Re. Issue 3: Legitimacy of the Assessment Orders and Demand Notices
The petitioners sought to quash the assessment orders and demand notices issued under Section 28(6) of the Act, arguing that they were beyond the authority of the assessing officers and not in compliance with the law.
The Court noted that the petitioners have an alternate remedy of appeal against the assessment orders. The Court did not find any justifiable ground to examine the merits of the assessment orders in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Court directed that all contentions regarding the merits of the assessment orders could be urged before the appropriate appellate authorities. The Court also provided the petitioners with the liberty to file appeals and directed the appellate authorities to consider the pendency of these petitions while deciding on any applications for condonation of delay.
Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed, and the Court upheld the constitutionality of Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule, validated the Commissioner's clarification, and directed the petitioners to pursue alternate remedies through appeals against the assessment orders.
-
1998 (4) TMI 519
Issues:
Penalty proceedings under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for importing raw material without necessary documents.
Analysis:
The revision arose from penalty proceedings under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act concerning the import of raw material without proper documentation. The respondent-assessee, engaged in manufacturing polythene bags, imported raw material H.D.P. granules from Bombay, which were seized at a check-post due to missing form 31. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated, and the security amount paid by the assessee was converted into a penalty. The Sales Tax Tribunal, in a second appeal, reduced the penalty from Rs. 24,194 to Rs. 1,000, leading the Revenue to challenge this decision in revision.
Section 15-A(1)(o) empowers the assessing authority to impose penalties for contravening section 28-A of the Act. The penalty can amount to 40% of the goods' value or three times the tax leviable, whichever is higher. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty, arguing that the facts of the case did not justify such a reduction. However, the Court noted that previous judgments clarified that penalties under this section require proof of intent to evade tax, not just a technical violation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, holding an eligibility certificate exempting it from tax, had no intention to evade tax by importing the raw material. The goods were duly recorded, and the mistake in documentation was attributed to the clearing agent. The Tribunal concluded that it was a bona fide mistake, and the penalty was reduced due to technical non-compliance with section 28-A. The Court emphasized that penalties for statutory breaches should be imposed judiciously, considering all relevant circumstances.
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court highlighted that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches if the offender believed they were not liable to act as prescribed by the statute. Given the Tribunal's findings of a bona fide mistake and no intent to evade tax, the Court upheld the reduced penalty of Rs. 1,000. The revision was deemed meritless and dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
-
1998 (4) TMI 518
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of files and documents by the tax authorities.
2. Applicability of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA) to the seizure.
3. Validity of Memo No. 10486 issued by the tax authorities threatening prosecution for non-submission of returns.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Seizure of Files and Documents:
The applicants contended that the seizure of files and documents by respondent No. 2 on March 7, 1997, was illegal as it was conducted without assigning any reason and without proper documentation. They alleged that the seizure receipt was not handed over to them initially and was only provided after they refused to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs as demanded by respondent No. 2. The respondents, however, argued that the seizure was conducted lawfully under the provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, due to the applicant's habitual default in tax payments and the suspicion of tax evasion based on the examination of books of accounts and gate passes. The Tribunal found that the reasons for the seizure were recorded in writing prior to the seizure, and the seizure was witnessed by two employees of the applicant, thus complying with the legal requirements. Therefore, the seizure was held to be valid.
2. Applicability of Section 22(1) of the SICA Act:
The applicants argued that as a sick industrial company under the SICA Act, they were entitled to protection under Section 22(1), which prohibits any proceedings for execution, distress, or the like against the properties of the company without the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). They cited several judgments to support their claim that the seizure was a coercive action covered under Section 22(1). The respondents countered that the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, is an independent Act, and the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act do not apply to their actions. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals, which clarified that the embargo under Section 22(1) applies only to actions that impede the implementation of the revival scheme for the sick company. The Tribunal concluded that the seizure of books of accounts did not obstruct the revival of the company and was not akin to distress or execution against the company's properties. Hence, Section 22(1) of the SICA Act did not apply to the seizure.
3. Validity of Memo No. 10486:
The applicants challenged the validity of Memo No. 10486 issued on December 30, 1996, which threatened prosecution for non-submission of returns and directed the applicant to appear before the tax authorities. The Tribunal found that this memo clearly constituted a coercive action aimed at realizing taxes under threat of prosecution, which falls within the scope of "proceedings for execution, distress or the like" as prohibited by Section 22(1) of the SICA Act. Therefore, the memo was held to be illegal and was quashed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the application in part. The seizure of the documents and books of accounts on March 7, 1997, was held to be valid, while Memo No. 10486 dated December 30, 1996, was quashed as it violated the protection offered under Section 22(1) of the SICA Act. There was no order as to costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 517
The Allahabad High Court dismissed two connected trade tax revisions filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. against a common order by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing appeals by the respondent-assessee for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 due to the assessee being unwell, supported by a medical certificate. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing a liberal approach in condoning delay and emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations. The Court found no evidence of deliberate delay by the assessee and dismissed both revisions as devoid of merit.
-
1998 (4) TMI 516
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of tax liability on sales made to RSEB as incentive availed under the schemes.
2. Levy of tax, interest, etc., on all sales made after the maximum quantum of exemption was exhausted.
3. Levy of tax, interest, etc., on sales made without collecting tax from customers other than RSEB.
4. Forfeiture of the amount of tax collected from RSEB and imposition of penalty.
5. Rectification of the assessment orders under section 17, RST Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Treatment of Tax Liability on Sales Made to RSEB as Incentive Availed Under the Schemes
The dealer, a small-scale industrial unit, held an eligibility certificate (EC) entitling it to tax exemption benefits under the Sales Tax Incentive Schemes for Industries, 1987. The dealer sold transformers to RSEB, collected sales tax at 4%, and deposited the sums with the Government. The Assessing Authority (AA) accepted this position during regular assessment proceedings. However, the impugned notices proposed treating the tax liability on sales to RSEB as an incentive availed under the schemes, which was contested by the dealer. The Tribunal found that the dealer had the choice to either charge RSEB by way of sales tax nothing or 4% or less, and this was a matter between the customer and the dealer. The collection of tax at 4% from RSEB was in order and accepted by the AA.
Issue 2: Levy of Tax, Interest, etc., on All Sales Made After the Maximum Quantum of Exemption Was Exhausted
The dealer argued that it had not exhausted the full quantum of exemption of Rs. 7,76,583. The Tribunal noted that the schemes provided incentives and concessions for investment in new industrial ventures and did not confer any rights. The dealer could avail of the exemption on some sales and not on others without forgoing the right to avail of the total quantum allowed within the time permitted. Therefore, the AA's proposal to levy tax, interest, etc., after the maximum quantum was exhausted was not warranted.
Issue 3: Levy of Tax, Interest, etc., on Sales Made Without Collecting Tax from Customers Other Than RSEB
The dealer contended that the collection of tax on transformers sold to RSEB did not violate any provisions of the schemes or the RST Act. The Tribunal found that the dealer had the choice to charge tax or not on sales to other customers, and this was acceptable as long as the tax collected was deposited with the Government. The AA's proposal to levy tax, interest, etc., on sales made without collecting tax from other customers was not justified.
Issue 4: Forfeiture of the Amount of Tax Collected from RSEB and Imposition of Penalty
The AA proposed forfeiture of the amount of tax collected from RSEB and the imposition of a penalty under section 16(1)(j), RST Act. The Tribunal found that section 16(1)(j)(iii) would be attracted only if section 5G, RST Act applied, which was not the case here. The schemes exempted industrial units (a class of persons) from payment of tax, and the sale of transformers was exigible to tax. Therefore, the collection of tax at 4% from RSEB was not in violation of the schemes, and the AA's proposal for forfeiture and penalty was not warranted.
Issue 5: Rectification of the Assessment Orders Under Section 17, RST Act
The dealer sought to impugn the notices under section 17, RST Act, arguing that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant invoking section 17. The Tribunal agreed, noting that section 17 is limited to the rectification of errors apparent from the record, and there was no such error in this case. The AA's proposal to rectify the assessment orders under section 17 was not justified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned notices and any proceedings taken pursuant thereto. The dealer was entitled to avail full exemption as per the EC, and the collection of tax from RSEB at 4% was in order. The AA's proposals for levy of tax, interest, forfeiture, and penalty were not warranted. The applications were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
-
1998 (4) TMI 515
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of issuing a notice under section 14(1) by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes for periods already assessed.
2. Constitutionality of section 14(1) on the ground of conferring arbitrary powers without prescribed conditions.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 14(1)
The applicant, a registered dealer, was served a notice under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, directing the production of books of accounts for periods already assessed. The applicant contended that such notice was beyond the jurisdiction of the Inspector and argued that re-examination of documents should only occur if a proceeding under section 11E(2) or section 20(3) was pending.
The Tribunal held that section 14(1) allows the Commissioner to require any person to produce accounts, registers, or documents deemed necessary for the purposes of the Act. This power is not restricted to pending proceedings. The Tribunal distinguished this from the Income-tax Act cases cited by the applicant, where summons under section 131 required a pending proceeding. The Tribunal emphasized that section 14(1) is more comprehensive and can be exercised for preliminary inquiries to determine the necessity of reopening an assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued was valid and did not amount to reopening the assessment but was a preparatory step for potential reassessment.
Issue 2: Constitutionality of Section 14(1)
The applicant challenged the constitutionality of section 14(1), arguing it conferred untrammeled and arbitrary power due to the absence of prescribed conditions. The Tribunal rejected this contention, noting that Rule 68 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, provides conditions for exercising power under section 14(1). These conditions ensure that the business of the dealer is not unduly disturbed and restrict requisitions to necessary information.
Moreover, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Singh v. Central Government, which held that the absence of rules does not invalidate the exercise of statutory power unless expressly provided by the statute. Section 14(1) stands on its own and can be implemented without additional rules. The Tribunal concluded that section 14(1) is not ultra vires the Constitution.
Additional Observations:
The Tribunal also addressed the applicant's argument that the notice was intended to reopen assessments based on external material not considered by the original assessing authority. The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner's power under section 20(3) allows consideration of escaped items and that the enquiry initiated by the Bureau of Investigation was within legal bounds. The Tribunal emphasized that the Bureau's role under section 19A includes investigating suspected tax evasion, which justifies the issuance of the notice under section 14(1).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, upholding the validity of the notice under section 14(1) and the constitutionality of the section. The interim order was vacated, and no costs were awarded. The Tribunal affirmed that the powers conferred by section 14(1) could be exercised without the need for additional rules, and the Bureau of Investigation's actions were within its jurisdiction to investigate potential tax evasion.
-
1998 (4) TMI 514
Issues Involved:
1. Approval of transfer of assets and liabilities including IFST deferral.
2. Cancellation of demand notice and recovery of IFST arrears.
3. Liability of transferee for IFST arrears.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Approval of Transfer of Assets and Liabilities Including IFST Deferral:
The petitioner sought approval for the transfer of assets and liabilities, including the Interest-Free Sales Tax (IFST) deferral, to a new unit owned by the third respondent. The petitioner had obtained an eligibility certificate for IFST deferral, which included specific conditions prohibiting the sale, disposal, or change in ownership of fixed assets without prior written permission from the government. Despite entering into a sale agreement with the third respondent and informing the Assistant Commissioner (CT), the necessary permissions from the Industries and Commercial Taxes Departments were not obtained. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner (CT) could not exercise his powers to approve the transfer. The Tribunal concluded that without the required government permissions, the request for approval of the transfer could not be granted, especially since the eligibility certificate had been canceled and the cancellation had become final.
2. Cancellation of Demand Notice and Recovery of IFST Arrears:
The petitioner challenged the demand notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, which required payment of IFST arrears. The petitioner argued that the cancellation of the eligibility certificate without notice was illegal. However, the Tribunal noted that the eligibility certificate was canceled by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, due to violations of its conditions, and no appeal was filed against this cancellation. As a result, the cancellation became final. The Tribunal held that the demand notice was valid as the cancellation of the eligibility certificate meant that the deferral order no longer survived, and the petitioner was liable to pay the entire sales tax amount due as arrears.
3. Liability of Transferee for IFST Arrears:
The petitioner contended that the department should proceed against the assets in the hands of the third respondent for the collection of IFST arrears under Section 27 of the TNGST Act, which allows recovery from the transferee limited to the value of the assets obtained by transfer. The Tribunal clarified that Section 27 provides the option to recover arrears from either the transferor or the transferee, with the transferee's liability limited to the value of the assets transferred. However, the Tribunal emphasized that irrespective of the transferee's liability, the transferor remains liable for the arrears. The Tribunal found no merit in the contention that the department should exclusively proceed against the third respondent, as the petitioner was the one who accumulated the arrears and the properties remained charged in favor of the department.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both petitions, upholding the validity of the demand notice and denying the request for approval of the transfer of assets and liabilities including IFST deferral. The Tribunal ordered that the decision be observed and executed by all concerned parties.
-
1998 (4) TMI 513
The Karnataka High Court allowed writ appeals filed by the State against a judgment allowing writ petitions challenging an amendment to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act. The Court held that the amendment Act, deleting section 28, without the President's assent is unconstitutional. The judgment in Arun Manikchand Shah v. State of Karnataka is no longer valid. The writ petitioners are allowed to pay the tax in two instalments.
-
1998 (4) TMI 512
Issues:
Challenge to order under section 21 of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 based on initiation and completion period of 4 years, and existence of factual requirements.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the order passed under section 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, arguing that the initiation and completion of the power under this section should be within 4 years. The petitioner relied on previous decisions, including S. Subha Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Keshawa Trading Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which supported the view that initiation within 4 years suffices, and completion can extend beyond this period. The Court emphasized the interpretation of "exercisable" and "initiation" in legal dictionaries to support this stance. The petitioner referenced judgments from Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Courts, but the Court maintained that the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes prevails in this matter.
2. The second contention raised was regarding the existence of factual requirements for initiating the power under section 21 of the Act. The Court opined that this is a factual matter falling under the purview of the competent appellate authority. The petitioner was advised to pursue the remedy of statutory appeal under section 22 of the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to follow the statutory appeal route without prejudice to their rights.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the principle that initiation of proceedings under section 21 within 4 years is sufficient, even if completion extends beyond this period. The Court also clarified that the examination of factual premises for initiating the power under section 21 is within the jurisdiction of the competent appellate authority. The judgment emphasized adherence to the Karnataka High Court's precedent in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
-
1998 (4) TMI 511
Issues:
1. Challenge to revisional order by the writ petitioner
2. Inclusion of goods in registration certificates
3. Rejection of application for declaration forms
4. Comparative study of Orissa Sales Tax Act and West Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act
5. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Orissa Sales Tax Act
Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner challenged the revisional order dated May 24, 1997, made by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Berhampur. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Sales Tax Officer to include goods intended for works contract in registration certificates under relevant tax acts.
2. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing shelters and executing works contracts, alleged that the Sales Tax Officer omitted the list of materials in the registration certificates without providing reasons. The petitioner requested the issuance of declaration forms, which was denied by the authority.
3. The petitioner argued that the decision to reject the application for declaration forms was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, citing differences between the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner relied on judgments from various states to support their position.
4. The court conducted a comparative study of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the West Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act to analyze the treatment of works contractors. The court examined definitions, charging sections, and turnover provisions to determine the applicability of relevant laws.
5. After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing relevant legal provisions, the court found that the issues raised by the petitioner had been adequately addressed in previous judgments. The court concluded that the revisional authority had rightly rejected the petitioner's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
In the final judgment, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the revisional authority's decision was justified, and there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments to warrant interference. Judge R.K. Dash agreed with the decision, and the petition was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 510
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989 regarding sales tax benefits for industries downgraded from medium scale to small-scale.
2. Entitlement of a downgraded industry to sales tax benefits under I.P.R., 1989.
3. Validity of the decision of the State Government to deny benefits to a downgraded industry.
4. Revision of sales tax assessment orders for the petitioner-company.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989 (I.P.R., 1989) concerning sales tax benefits for industries that were downgraded from medium scale to small-scale. The petitioner-company opted to register as a small-scale unit following an enhancement of investment limits by a government notification. The State Level Empowered Committee recommended benefits for newly converted small-scale industrial units, and the petitioner sought these benefits as per the decision.
2. The key issue was whether a downgraded industry was entitled to sales tax benefits under I.P.R., 1989. The Court noted that the incentives under I.P.R., 1989 were based on the category of the industry (large scale, medium scale, small-scale), and once an industry transitioned from medium to small-scale, it should receive benefits applicable to small-scale industries. The Court found no justification for denying benefits to a downgraded industry and held that the petitioner was entitled to sales tax exemptions as a small-scale unit.
3. The State Government's decision to deny benefits to the petitioner as a small-scale industrial unit was challenged. The Court found the decision unreasonable, emphasizing that the purpose of registering as a small-scale unit was to avail concessions and incentives available. The decision of the State Level Empowered Committee to grant benefits to downgraded industries was deemed rational and justified, leading to the setting aside of the State Government's decision.
4. Additionally, the Court directed the sales tax authorities to revise the assessment orders for the relevant periods, allowing the petitioner-company the benefit of sales tax exemption as a small-scale industrial unit. The judgment also addressed the petitioner's claim as a pioneer unit, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise the claim before the authorities for consideration.
In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the State Government's decision and directing the authorities to provide the petitioner with the sales tax benefits as per I.P.R., 1989.
-
1998 (4) TMI 509
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995.
2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
3. Retrospective effect of the 1995 Scheme.
4. Compliance with Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Validity of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995:
The petitioners challenged the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995, which limited sales tax exemptions to increases in production following expansion, modernization, and diversification. They argued that the scheme prejudicially affected their vested rights granted by earlier schemes and contradicted the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The court noted that the 1995 Scheme was framed under statutory powers conferred by Section 9(4) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, and was therefore statutory in both origin and content. The court found no substantial difference between the 1991 and 1995 schemes, concluding that the 1995 Scheme did not materially depart from the 1991 policy.
2. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioners claimed that the 1991 Industrial Policy contained an unequivocal promise of full sales tax exemption for seven years, which they relied upon to their detriment. They argued that the state was estopped from resiling from this promise by introducing the 1995 Scheme. The court, however, found no breach of promise or higher equity in favor of the petitioners. It held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which emanates from equity to avoid injustice, did not apply as the petitioners had already availed full benefits under earlier schemes. The court emphasized that there cannot be estoppel against a fiscal measure.
3. Retrospective Effect of the 1995 Scheme:
The petitioners contended that no notification providing relief under Section 9(4) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, could be made with retrospective effect to take away accrued rights. The court held that the 1995 Scheme, being statutory, could not be read as retrospective. The Legislature had conferred full mandate to the executive authority to frame schemes from time to time. Therefore, the 1995 Scheme was not considered retrospective in effect.
4. Compliance with Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners argued that the 1995 Scheme was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by linking sales tax benefits to production increases, which were not guaranteed outcomes of expansion, modernization, or diversification. The court held that the right to tax incentives is not a fundamental right and that the criteria for determining increase in production were reasonable and not arbitrary. The court found no violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), as the petitioners had already benefited from earlier schemes and were not entitled to full incentives under the new scheme.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the 1995 Scheme was valid and did not violate the principles of promissory estoppel, nor was it retrospective or unconstitutional. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,000 each.
-
1998 (4) TMI 508
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the tax revision case against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The case was related to the set-off of actual tax paid for the sale and purchase of iron and steel in the state. The Deputy Commissioner's interpretation was overruled, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld based on G.O. Ms. No. 763, Revenue (CT.II), dated August 21, 1990.
-
1998 (4) TMI 507
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty imposed under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Interpretation of the explanation to items 50 and 51 of the First Schedule regarding tax liability on copra and coconut oil/cake.
3. The requirement of mens rea for imposing penalties under Section 45A.
4. The validity of the Board of Revenue's suo motu revision and cancellation of the Deputy Commissioner's order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the Penalty Imposed under Section 45A:
The petitioner, an oil miller, was penalized Rs. 2,11,960 for allegedly submitting untrue returns, violating Section 45A(1)(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The first respondent argued that the petitioner claimed an erroneous exemption on copra purchases, amounting to filing incorrect returns to evade tax. The Deputy Commissioner canceled this penalty, but the Board of Revenue restored it, asserting that the petitioner sought to evade tax by submitting untrue returns. The court evaluated whether the penalty was justified, considering the petitioner's conduct and the statutory requirements.
2. Interpretation of the Explanation to Items 50 and 51 of the First Schedule:
The petitioner contended that by paying 5% tax on the sales of coconut oil and cake, they were exempt from paying tax on the purchase turnover of copra, as per the explanation to items 50 and 51. The first respondent and the Board of Revenue disagreed, stating that the explanation only allowed for a deduction of tax levied on copra from the tax on coconut oil and cake, not an exemption. The court examined this interpretation, noting that the petitioner had paid the tax due on the sales of coconut oil and cake and believed in good faith that this fulfilled their tax obligations.
3. Requirement of Mens Rea for Imposing Penalties:
The court emphasized that for a penalty under Section 45A, authorities must establish mens rea or contumacious conduct. The petitioner's belief that they were not liable to pay tax on copra purchases, due to the explanation in items 50 and 51, was deemed bona fide. The court referenced Supreme Court rulings stating that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or where the breach arises from a bona fide belief. The petitioner's omission to show the purchase turnover of copra was seen as a technical defect, not warranting a penalty.
4. Validity of the Board of Revenue's Suo Motu Revision:
The Board of Revenue's suo motu revision canceled the Deputy Commissioner's order, reinstating the penalty. The court scrutinized this action, considering whether the Board's interpretation of the tax liabilities and the imposition of penalties were legally sound. The court concluded that the Board's decision was not justified, as the petitioner's actions did not exhibit contumacious conduct or an intention to evade tax.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the penalty orders (Exhibits P2 and P5) imposed by the first respondent and the Board of Revenue, respectively. The petitioner's actions were based on a bona fide belief, and the omission to show the purchase turnover of copra was a technical defect. The court ruled that no penalty was exigible under the circumstances, aligning with the principles established in Supreme Court decisions. The original petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (4) TMI 506
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to exemption from tax under the K.S.T. Act on the sale turnover of beer purchased before April 1, 1990?
Analysis:
The appellant, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, appealed against an order assessing the sales turnover of beer at 45% tax without exemption. The appellant argued that the beer purchased before April 1, 1990, and taxed at 36% earlier, should be exempt from further tax under the amended section 5(1-A) of the Act. The Government Advocate contended that the exemption under 5(1-A) applies only to post-incorporation tax payments. The central issue was whether the appellant is entitled to exemption for beer sales turnover taxed before April 1, 1990.
The Court analyzed the legislative history and provisions of the Act. It noted that beer was initially taxed at 36% under section 5(3)(a) but was made subject to a 45% multi-point tax under section 5(1-A) from April 1, 1990. The Court examined section 5(1-A) and its provisos, emphasizing that exemption applies to turnover taxed after the provision's incorporation. The Court clarified that the exemption does not extend to turnover taxed before April 1, 1990, as per the provisos' distinct meanings.
The appellant cited various judgments for a harmonious construction of the statute to claim exemption. However, the Court differentiated those cases, emphasizing that the statutory interpretation must align with the legislative intent. It highlighted that the literal interpretation of section 5(1-A) and its provisos indicates that only dealers taxed post-incorporation are entitled to exemption, excluding those taxed earlier. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant is not eligible for exemption on the beer sales turnover taxed before April 1, 1990.
In conclusion, the Court's judgment clarified that the appellant is not entitled to exemption from tax under the K.S.T. Act for beer sales turnover taxed before April 1, 1990. The decision was based on the specific provisions of section 5(1-A) and its provisos, which only grant exemption to dealers taxed after the provision's enactment. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes in line with legislative intent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
1998 (4) TMI 505
Issues Involved:1. Whether the return of gold with labor charges in exchange for gold ornaments amounts to a sale under section 2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 2. Whether the transaction in question constitutes an inter-State sale assessable under the Central Sales Tax Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Definition of Sale under Kerala General Sales Tax Act:The primary issue was whether the return of gold with labor charges in exchange for gold ornaments constitutes a sale under section 2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessee argued that the transaction was not a sale but an exchange or barter, contending that the term "valuable consideration" under section 2(xxi) should be confined to monetary payments like cheques or promissory notes. The Tribunal, however, relied on the Madras High Court's decision in V.P. Vadivel Achari v. Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and concluded that the transaction amounted to a sale. The court examined various precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. and Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab, which emphasized that a sale requires a money consideration. The court concluded that the words "other valuable consideration" in section 2(xxi) should be interpreted to mean monetary payments, and thus, the transaction in question did not constitute a sale under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The court disagreed with the Madras High Court's broader interpretation of "valuable consideration" and held that the transaction was not a sale but an exchange. 2. Inter-State Sale under the Central Sales Tax Act:The second issue was whether the transaction constituted an inter-State sale assessable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority initially treated the transaction as an inter-State sale. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of a prior contract for sale or movement of goods from Kerala to another state as a result of such a contract. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Revenue had not established the necessary conditions for an inter-State sale. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar, which required both a sale and the transportation of goods from one state to another for an inter-State sale to occur. Since the Revenue failed to prove these elements, the court affirmed that the transaction was not an inter-State sale and thus not taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. Conclusion:The court held that the exchange of old gold with labor charges in return for gold ornaments does not constitute a sale under section 2(xxi) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee's petition was allowed, and the Revenue's petition was dismissed. The assessment order against the assessee for the year 1980-81 was set aside. Judgment:Assessee's petition allowed. Revenue's petition dismissed.
-
1998 (4) TMI 504
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice service under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Procedural requirements for substituted service by affixation.
3. Compliance with Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the reassessment order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of notice service under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The primary issue revolved around whether the notice under section 21 was served validly. The assessee contested that the service by affixation was improper. The court highlighted that the service of notice is not merely procedural but a condition precedent for reassessment. The Full Bench in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax emphasized that mere issuance of notice is insufficient; it must be validly served. If the notice is invalid or not served, the proceedings and the consequential order under section 21 are void.
2. Procedural requirements for substituted service by affixation:
The court discussed the procedural requirements for substituted service under Rule 77. Service by affixation is considered the weakest mode and should be used only if other modes are impracticable. The authority must form an objective opinion that service by other modes is not practicable. The court cited Gopal Das Uttam Chand v. Sales Tax Officer, Dehra Dun, which stated that the Sales Tax Officer must apply his mind to the facts before ordering affixation and cannot delegate this discretion to the process-server.
3. Compliance with Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948:
Rule 77 outlines the modes of service: personal service, leaving a copy at the last known place of business or residence, sending by registered post, and affixation. The court noted that the assessing authority attempted personal service and registered post, which were unsuccessful. The process-server's reports indicated failed attempts at personal service. The court found that the assessing authority had applied its mind and formed an opinion that other modes were impracticable, justifying the use of affixation.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the reassessment order:
The court examined whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated correctly. The Tribunal initially found the service by affixation invalid due to the non-service at the residential address of the partners. However, the High Court, in a previous revision, directed the Tribunal to reconsider the case, emphasizing the proper interpretation of Rule 77 and the law laid down in Bipin Bihari Lal Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer. Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal upheld the service by affixation and found no grounds for interference with the assessed turnover.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the service by affixation was valid as the assessing authority had exhausted other modes and formed an opinion on their impracticability. The reassessment order was procedurally correct, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld. The revision was dismissed, and the stay order was discharged. The judgment emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements for notice service and validated the reassessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
-
1998 (4) TMI 503
Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court?
Whether a Member of Parliament is a "public servant" falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986?
Held that:- Member of Parliament does not enjoy immunity under Article 105(1) or under Article 105(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted before a criminal court for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe for the purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any committees thereof.
A member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Since there is no authority competent to remove a Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for his prosecution under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) in the absence of sanction but till provision is made by Parliament in that regard by suitable amendment in the law, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the 1988 Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be.
-
1998 (4) TMI 502
Issues:
1. Whether the appellants and the society were entitled to be issued with notice under section 6(1)?
2. Whether the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and do not fall within the definition of "person" under section 2(2)(e)?
Issue 1:
The appeal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) was made against the order of the competent authority forfeiting a property. The detenu had sold the property to the appellants after a notice was issued but subsequently died. The competent authority ignored the sale transaction and directed forfeiture. The appellants argued that they should have been given notice and that the sale was not collusive. The Deputy Director contended that the sale was post-notice and thus ignored. The key question was whether the appellants and the society should have received notice.
Issue 1 Analysis:
The provision of section 11 of SAFEMA mandates that any property transfer post-notice issuance shall be ignored and deemed void upon forfeiture. The agreement between the detenu and the appellants was after the notice, making it correctly ignored by the competent authority. The nature of the title held by the detenu was not relevant as the forfeiture was limited to the detenu's rights. The argument that the society should have been heard was dismissed as unnecessary due to the limited scope of forfeiture.
Issue 2:
The appellants claimed to be bona fide purchasers and not covered by the Act's provisions. They argued that undue hardship should not be caused to bona fide purchasers. The contention was that the Act should be interpreted to protect bona fide purchasers not falling under section 11. The appellants' plea was based on being bona fide purchasers for value without notice.
Issue 2 Analysis:
The Act's provisions clearly differentiate between section 2(2)(e) and section 11, covering different scenarios. Section 2(2)(e) protects transactions before notice issuance, while section 11 deals with post-notice transfers. The argument that the appellants were bona fide purchasers did not hold as the transaction was after the notice. The plea of the bona fide purchaser was deemed applicable only if the transaction occurred before the notice was issued.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the competent authority's order of forfeiture. The judgment clarified the application of SAFEMA provisions regarding notice issuance, post-notice transactions, and the rights of bona fide purchasers. The decision emphasized the mandatory nature of section 11 and the limited scope of forfeiture concerning the detenu's rights in the property.
........
|
9911796707
