|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 31 of 31 Records
-
1957 (7) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... could be inferred from other circumstances or the conduct of the parties, the consignment of the goods to the seller is a pointer to the conclusion that he intended to remain the owner thereof till he realised the balance of the purchase money. We are also disposed to think that the fact that the seller debited the buyer with the balance or that the goods were taken out of the stock register does not establish the contrary intention. We feel that it does not in any way alter the position. These debits seem to have been made in accordance with trade usage. It follows that the sales were completed only outside the State where the buyers obtained delivery of the goods by paying the balance of the sale price to the agents of the assessees and consequently, the Taxing Authority in the Madras State had no power to subject these transactions to sales tax and these suits were rightly decreed by the trial Judge. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1957 (7) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of the provisions of rules 67, 68 and 69 is that there is an express power of pleading by a person other than the assessee himself or a lawyer before the Judge (Appeals). It was further held in that case that in rule 77A there was nothing which was inconsistent with the provisions of rules 67 and 68 and enabled the assessee to appoint an agent for the purpose of pleading on his behalf before the Judge (Appeals). In view of that decision which is binding on me it is not open to me to hold that the assessee s common law right to appoint an agent for pleading on his behalf has not been cut down by the specific provisions of rules 67 and 68. The two cases therefore relied upon by the petitioner do not help him and are distinguishable. In view of my decision on the merits it is not necessary to consider other preliminary objections raised by the standing counsel. There is therefore no force in this petition and it is rejected but I make no orders as to costs. Petition rejected.
-
1957 (7) TMI 30 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le. 7.. The fundamental distinction between the present case and all the aforesaid cases has already been emphasised. The primary relationship between the petitioner and the Government was one of agent and principal for the supply of foodgrains and the supply of gunny bags was ancillary to the supply of foodgrains and necessary for such supply in the ordinary course of business. Hence, as there was no relationship of buyer and seller between the two in respect of the foodgrains it is difficult to imagine how such a relationship could exist in respect of the gunny bags in which such foodgrains were supplied. 8.. I would, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of the Sales Tax Authorities and direct that no sales tax shall be levied in respect of the supply of gunny bags. The order for payment of penalty for failure to register as a dealer is also set aside. The petitioner is entitled to costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100. DAS, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1957 (7) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e or mistake but not cases where the omission was due to a wrong view of the law or ignorance of the law. In the present case the appellant himself concedes that he had to submit a return but that, in his view, the submission of the return at the end of the year would be sufficient. This is due to a wrong view of the law on the part of the appellant. There is no doubt, therefore, that the appellant intentionally excluded the wholesale sales in his return for the months of April, May and June. He is, therefore, guilty of wilfully submitting a false return. The appellant was rightly found to be guilty of the offence with which he has been charged but in the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that a sentence of a fine of Rs. 100 will meet the ends of justice. The conviction is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to payment of a fine of Rs. 100, in default four weeks rigorous imprisonment. The excess fine, if paid, will be refunded to the appellant. Petition dismissed.
-
1957 (7) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... previous operation of the old section 15(b), and the decision in State of Punjab v. Mohar SinghA.I.R. 1955 S.C. 84., which has been cited on behalf of the accused, is really against him. 4.. We allow the appeals and, in each case, convict the accused of an offence under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Since the Legislature itself has felt that a mere failure to pay tax should not be visited with a criminal sanction, we consider that a nominal sentence would suffice to serve the ends of justice. Accordingly we sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in each case, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a week. In the terms of the latter part of section 15(h) of the Act (which again being a remedy given by the principal Act is not retrospectively affected by reason of the repeal by the amending Act) we specify that the arrears of tax due from the accused in the three cases are the amounts mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Appeals allowed.
-
1957 (7) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ith cases where no general tax is actually payable and the cases where no general tax is actually payable are, we are told at the Bar, only the sales to people outside the State of Bombay and no others. Therefore, sale in this rule means a sale in Bombay and if there is no sale in Bombay there is a breach of the condition on which the goods attracted the deduction under rule 5(1)(vii), and if section 51 had succeeded in validating the rule, in our opinion, all the petitioners whether they had failed in fulfilling the condition that they would process the goods or whether they have failed in fulfilling the condition that the goods would be sold in Bombay State would equally have attracted tax. The result, therefore, is that all these petitions must succeed and the orders made by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of both the periods, since they have been made under rules which are ultra vires, shall be set aside and the rules will be made absolute with costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1957 (7) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the defend- ants for all the goods supplied by the end of the month following the dealings. On account of this condition, Greer, L.J., and Slesser, L.J., held the view that the relationship between the parties was that of a seller and purchaser. Although nothing turned upon this question, the view of the noble Lords indicates the special features of a sale, which are in (1) 1932 1 K.B. 710. no way contrary to the conditions mentioned in section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act. Therefore Kanhaiyalal Pradhan was not, under law, an agent but only a favoured buyer, although the agreement was ostensibly one of agency. 9.. As the facts of the present case establish the conditions mentioned in section 2(g), read with Explanation II, the Board of Revenue was right in holding that the transactions constituted sales taxable under the Act. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative. Costs shall be on the assessee-company. Hearing fee Rs. 50. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1957 (7) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Custody of company’s property and Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... be so, the suit in form seems to be unexceptionable, i.e., it is a suit filed in the name of the company where the plaint is verified by one of the directors, who in the normal course of things would be a proper person to sign and verify the pleading under the provisions of Order XXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. It certainly would have been open to the defendants, so long as the order appointing the provisional liquidator was operative, to move an application to strike out the name of the company from the records of the suit and to make the solicitor for the plaintiff personally liable for the costs but as the position now is I do not think the plaint is demurrable on the ground that at the time when the suit was filed the director, who verified the plaint herein, had no authority to do so and to give a warrant of attorney to the solicitor who filed the suit. I must, therefore, hold against the defendants in this case and come to the finding that the suit is maintainable.
-
1957 (7) TMI 18 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding-up of unregistered companies ... ... ... ... ..... magine that in many cases, even if there is a question of a principal and an ancillary jurisdiction, the official, receiver will not find it difficult to carry out his duties under the Companies Act without any application to the court, and in such a case the reservation in the order will merely waste money. In other cases, no doubt, it may be extremely difficult, but then surely it is better to decide what is to be done with the facts in evidence than to decide what is to be done in advance of knowledge of the facts. Therefore, while I am satisfied that an order, which does no more than did the order in In re Commercial Bank of South Australia 33 Ch. D. 174, is within the powers of the court, I do not think it desirable to put any special provision in the winding-up order but I am most indebted to counsel who have given me much assistance on a point which I certainly wished to explore in the circumstances to which I have already alluded. The order will be the ordinary order.
-
1957 (7) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... espondent s counsel is that this appeal is incompetent. As stated above, the appeal should have been preferred by the official liquidator, but he has not done so. It is difficult to see how this appellant who is only a shareholder is competent to maintain the appeal. His learned counsel contended that he has got the leave of this court on the appellate side in C.M.P. No. 8344 of 1955. But that leave was granted without any notice to the respondents and certainly not by the company Judge. No leave was obtained from the District Judge before whom the winding up proceedings are pending. The appeal is therefore incompetent. A request was however made to convert this appeal into a civil revision petition. But there is this difficulty in doing so, because the official liquidator has got a right of appeal and inasmuch as he has not preferred the appeal himself, it will not be proper to interfere in revision at the request of a shareholder. This appeal is dismissed but without costs.
-
1957 (7) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Adjudication - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... would be no way of ascertaining whether these goods were brought from India or outside India. Far from there being evidence in this case to show that the ship had come from a foreign port and there was no evidence at all that the ship in recent times had visited a foreign port. This absence of evidence on a material point is fatal to the prosecution case. The position is that the prosecution has not proved that the articles that were in the suitcase were being brought into India at Calcutta from outside India. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution has failed to prove this case of any offence under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act against either of the two appellants. I would, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Magistrate and order that the appellants be acquitted of the charges against them. Appellant Arthur Almeida will be released and appellant Sergt. R.S. Hottinger will be discharged from the bailbond.
|
