Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 587 Records
-
2004 (4) TMI 584 - SUPREME COURT
Declaration of surplus area under the provisions of the Himachal Paradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972
-
2004 (4) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court’s fixation of the pension under clause 2(a) is correct?
Whether the High Court was correct in not adding the figures under para 2 cls. (a) and (b) of Schedule I, Part III of the Act in order to find out the revised amount of pension and whether a ceiling was imposed under clause 2(b) ?
-
2004 (4) TMI 582 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) had no jurisdiction to try the respondents for the alleged offences after coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) w.e.f. 9th September, 1998?
-
2004 (4) TMI 581 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... for imposing the tax. 14. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in S.T.O. v. Darling Dairy Products, (1994) 94 S.T.C. 93. 14. In Narain Chemical Industries v. Sales Tax Officer 1970 U.P.T.C. 605 a division Bench of this Court held following the earlier division Bench decision in C.S.T. v. Rohilkhand Glass & Syndicate Works (1969) 24 S.T.C. 413 that a mistake in applying the rate cannot be corrected under Section 21, but can be corrected under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. 15. Thus there is a difference between Sections 21 and 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (now known as U.P. Trade Tax Act). The limitations in Section 21 are not contained in Section 22. A similar view was taken in the analogous provision in the Income Tax Act by the Supreme Court in M.K. Venkatachalam, Income Tax Officer v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (1958) 34 I.T.R. 143. 16. Following the said decisions we find no merit in these writ petitions and they are all dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 580 - SUPREME COURT
How far and to what extent unaided private institutions can be subjected to regulations of education?
-
2004 (4) TMI 579 - JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ction of tax if the same is without authority of law. Admittedly, on the basis of facts disclosed before the revisional authorities and this Court, the petitioner is not liable to tax on the capital gain. Once, it is found that the petitioner has no tax liability, the respondents cannot be permitted to levy the tax and collect the same in contravention to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides a constitutional safe-guard on levy and collection of tax. It is true that this Court is not to act as Court of Appeal while exercising the writ jurisdiction, but at the same time where the admitted facts disclosed non-exercise of jurisdiction by an ad judicatory authority and a citizen is subjected to tax not payable by him, interference by this Court is warranted. Respondent No. 2 is directed to re-assess the taxable income of the petitioner, by taking into consideration the benefit available to her under section 54F of the Income Tax Act and pass appropriate order.
-
2004 (4) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is any person by name Digumarthi Premchand, Journalist, r/o. Narayanaguda and if such a person is available, cause his production before this Court on or before 19-9- 1997?
Whether if there is no such person by name Digumarthi Premchand, the sixth respondent shall investigate and find out as to under what circumstances this writ petition came into existence and the person or persons responsible for filing the same?
-
2004 (4) TMI 577 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala forbidding a lawyer from appearing, acting or pleading in any court till he got himself purged of the Contempt by an order of the appropriate court constitutionally valid?
-
2004 (4) TMI 576 - ANDHRA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e book is, by striking it down as being unconstitutional when challenged and on being satisfied. Such an occasion did not arise so far, in the context of the said provisions. The Conclusion 62. Viewed from any angle, the action of the Corporation in issuing notices straight away under Sub-section (2) of Section 220, and thereafter the demand notices, without following the procedure under Section 218, 219 and Sub-section (1) of Section 220 cannot be sustained. It is impermissible in law to undertake an expost facto publication of notices under Section 218 of the Act. What is required to precede, cannot be permitted to succeed. 63. Hence the assessments in question are set aside and it is directed that the Corporation shall be competent to levy the tax only after it complies with the procedure prescribed under Sections 218, 219 and 220 of the Act. 64. In the result, the appeals preferred by the Corporation stand dismissed and the appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT
Could not this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, have directed a communication being addressed to the High Court calling for information with the object of (I) ascertaining the facts, (ii) securing compliance with the direction contained in the order dated 28.10.2002?
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court is justified - in law and on considerations of propriety - to make all those observations as have been extracted and reproduced hereinabove?
Whether it is proper for the High Court to issue a direction to the Registrar General of Supreme Court of India to place its communication for consideration before a particular Bench of this Court?
-
2004 (4) TMI 574 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Kerala High court upholding appellant's conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') correct wherein he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- with a default stipulation of 6 months imprisonment and sentence of one year for the offence under the IPC?
-
2004 (4) TMI 573 - SC ORDER
... ... ... ... ..... ication for stay is rejected. The appeal is admitted.
-
2004 (4) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the cause of death of Bimlabai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld?
-
2004 (4) TMI 571 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on restoration of a suit an order of injunction passed is automatically revived or not?
Whether the power of the court to pass an order of attachment before judgment is an ancillary power or a supplemental power?
-
2004 (4) TMI 570 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ce, learned Single Judge was not correct in revoking the leave earlier granted and allowing the application in A.No.2558 of 2000. 48. In the result, (i) O.S.A.No.259 of 2000 stands allowed and the order of the learned Judge made in A.No.2558 of 2000 revoking the leave is set aside. (ii) O.S.A.No.260 of 2000 stands allowed and the order of the learned Judge dismissing O.A.No.553 of 2000 which is filed for injunction against infringement of copyright is set aside. (iii) O.S.A.No.261 of 2000 stands allowed and the order of the learned Judge dismissing O.A.No.554 of 2000 which is filed for injunction against passing off action is set aside. (iv) There will be an interim injunction against infringement of copyright and passing off action pending disposal of the suit subject to the condition mentioned earlier. (v) The suit shall be decided expeditiously. (vi) Interim injunction granted is suspended for a period of ten weeks from this date. (vii) There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (4) TMI 569 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ... ... ... ..... 1). This case law has no relevance to the present case because in the cited case yarn manufactured in the weaving department is consumed in the spinning department of the same mill. As against that in the present case the final product copper anode manufactured in the factory is removed on payment of duty and is not captively consumed. Further, even the by-product viz. Sulphuric Acid manufactured by using the by-product copper sulphide is also removed on payment of duty at the rate of 16 percent except a small portion under Chapter, X Procedure, etc. 34. In view of our discussion and finding as noted above, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the order of the Commissioner is not legal and proper and we set aside the same and allow the appeals of the assessee-appellants. Consequently, we uphold the order of the lower appellate authority and dismiss Appeal Nos. E450/2002 and 451/2002 filed by the Revenue and we order accordingly. (Pronounced in open Court on 12-4-2004).
-
2004 (4) TMI 568 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Kerala 1998 108 STC 598 (SC). The said decisions are not of any assistance as they do not deal with section 6B or the provisions of any section similar to section 6-B in other sales tax enactments relating to turnover tax. We therefore hold that amounts falling under the head charges for packing material when specified and charged separately, without including such amounts in the price of goods sold, are not liable to turnover tax. Petitions are accordingly allowed in part. The decision of the Tribunal is confirmed in so far as subjecting Shrinkkomp to tax under entry 7 of Part C of the Second Schedule to the Act. The decision of the assessing authority, appellate authority and the Tribunal, in so far as they hold that cost of packing material, specified and charged separately in the sale bill are also liable to turnover tax under section 6B of the Act, are set aside. The assessing authority is directed to re-do the assessments for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 accordingly.
-
2004 (4) TMI 567 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... sing authority that the commodity in question contains less than 40 per cent of the cotton fabrics. The said finding has not been disturbed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded to decide the controversy on the premise that the view of the assessing authority that since cotton coated fabrics was imported by issuing form XXXI and, therefore, it will become taxable commodity is not correct. This appears to be the basis of assessment order so far as it relates to imported cotton fabric against form XXXI is concerned. Learned Standing Counsel could not point out any error of law in the order of the Tribunal for taking the aforesaid view. The idea of issuing form XXXI is to inform the department that the dealer has imported certain goods inside the State of U.P. It has no relevancy about the taxability or otherwise of the goods in question while making import in the State of U.P. In the result there is no error of law in the order of the Tribunal. The revision is dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 566 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ook delivery of the goods, though denied by the applicant, in the State of U.P., therefore it was intra-State sale. This finding of the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative Sugars (Chittur) Limited 1993 90 STC 1, is legally not sound. It has been held by Supreme Court that it is not necessary that contract of sale must expressly provide, for movement of the goods. It is sufficient if movement of goods is implicit in the sale. In my view the Tribunal was not right in holding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that sale and movement of goods are unconnected and disassociated transaction. In view of the above I find sufficient force in the revision. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the applicant is not liable to pay any tax in the State of U.P. on the turnover of food grains amounting to Rs. 16,75,196.81 as it was purchases in the course of inter-State purchases. The revision is allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 565 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... dealer himself treated garigola differently than kirana and dry fruits. This court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal 2001 122 STC 567 2001 UPTC 173, has confirmed the order deleting the penalty on the finding that the assessee had been importing garigola under the bona fide belief that it is an item of kirana even though it is liable to be taxed as oil seed being declared goods. In that case it has been observed that the word kirana is a wide word and includes several items. Normally the garigola has not been treated as oil-seed by the consumer but as an item of kirana. In view of the above I am of the view that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act and it cannot be said that the dealer has made false representation under section 10(b) of the Act while making the purchases of garigola against form C. In the result both the revisions are allowed. The orders of penalty are set aside.
........
|