|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 248 Records
-
1988 (7) TMI 400 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... idual sales or purchases of goods effected during the relevant period and determine their exigibility to tax. It is not difficult to agree with the learned counsel that merely because a person is a dealer, all the activity undertaken by him should not automatically be treated as business activity with a profitmotive, and that it may be necessary to distinguish his activity from commodity to commodity and determine the liability to tax separately. But, as we have pointed out hereinbefore, the main activity and the activity in question herein are both of the same character, viz., distribution and sale of fertilisers. We, therefore, do not think that the said principle advances the case of the petitioner in any manner. For the above reasons, we find no grounds warranting interference in this Tax Revision Case under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Tax Revision Case, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 160. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 399 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vided under rule 12(10) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the issuance of these H forms shows that the purchaser of the gunnies has purchased them for export. Mere issuance of H form by itself is not sufficient to bring the case within the four corners of section 5(3) of the Act. It must further be proved that the goods purchased were actually exported by the purchaser. In this case no such proof is forthcoming. The relevant facts must be proved by the person who claims exemption or seeks a particular benefit. It is not a matter of presumption. As stated above, there is no evidence that export was effected by the firms/company which purchased gunnies from the petitioner or that the persons who actually exported barytes were acting as agents of and on behalf of the respective firms and company. For the above reason, the T.R.C. fails and is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 160. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 398 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In short, what is sought to be contended is that when a registered dealer makes purchase of the same commodity within the State, the purchase tax liability on the value of purchase will be less, whereas when a person imports goods from outside the State, even though he has paid less purchase price, his sale price, however, will be more than the purchase price as it would include other costs and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the person similarly situated will bear higher incidence of tax even though the rate of tax may be the same. I do not find any substance in this argument as well because persons similarly situated pay the tax at one and the same rate. Therefore, there could be no question of any discrimination. Therefore there is no substance in any of the points raised before us. 13. No other point has been raised. 14.. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. B.P. SINGH, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 397 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal has clearly found as a fact that the dealers have purchased hides and skins of animals to comply with the orders entered into with the foreign buyers for supply of leather of various specifications and after purchasing the raw hides and skins they tanned them and exported them in pursuance of the orders already entered into with the foreign buyers. It is true that the ground upon which the Tribunal has arrived at the said conclusion is different from the one adopted by us and it may also be that the ground upon which the Tribunal has distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. State of Madras 1964 15 STC 719 is open to question. But since the conclusion arrived at by it accords with our conclusion, the T.R.Cs. are liable to fail. Accordingly, they are dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 1,000 (consolidated). Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 396 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing authority to call upon the dealer to produce such other acceptable evidence in addition to form 32. One such acceptable evidence is the purchase bill. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner is not in a position to produce purchase bills and whether the production of said purchase bills would not be sufficient to decide the claim for exemption in these cases. Sri Srinivasan submits that his client is now prepared to produce all the purchase bills covering all the transactions which are the subjectmatter of all the assessment orders. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed and the assessment orders are set aside. I remand the cases to the assessing authority to redo the assessments in the light of this order. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the assessing authority in completing the assessments expeditiously. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the assessing authority on 22nd August, 1988. Writ Petitions allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 395 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e S.T.C. acted merely as an agent of Coromandel Fertilisers. We further agree with the finding that the S.T.C. and the I.M.C. were acting as principals. It was only after the title of the goods passed to the S.T.C. after the unloading at Visakhapatnam port that the sale by the S.T.C. (predecessor of the petitioner M.M.T.C.) in favour of Coromandel has taken place. On these findings, it is clear that the petitioner was not an agent but was acting as a principal and it was not also obliged to sell the goods only to Coromandel and it could sell to other party also. We, therefore, hold that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal and its ultimate decision regarding the applicability of the A.P.G.S.T. Act is correct and that the transactions of sale to Coromandel cannot be treated as sales which occasioned the import of the goods from the I.M.C. into India. The revision is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 394 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the sole ground that the sales in question were made the same day at Delhi. For the purposes of levying Central sales tax the same can hardly be a ground available to the department. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that grievance was raised before the Sales Tax Tribunal that no opportunity to cross-examine Sri Ayodhya Prasad was allowed to the assessee. This submission made on behalf of the assessee has also not been gone into by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is very sketchy and is based on incorrect facts and not on considerations which are relevant to the case. Under the circumstances the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 31st October, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with directions to decide the appeal afresh. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 393 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the assessee moved an application under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Check Post) who held that the authority seizing the goods was justified in demanding security. The first appeal preferred by the assessee was also dismissed. Consequently a second appeal was filed and that too has been dismissed by the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Aggrieved against the same the present revision has been preferred. On consideration of submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee the Sales Tax Tribunal has, as contemplated by law, recorded a finding of fact that that the intention of the owner was to evade tax. After a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal I find that there is no infirmity or error of law is involved in the same. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 6th May, 1988 granted in this case is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 392 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... obliged under the law to afford an adequate opportunity to the assessee for explaining its case before passing any order on the appeal. On a careful consideration of the orders passed by the two appellate authorities, namely, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) as well as the Sales Tax Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the appellate authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in making the order of remand by setting aside the assessment and directing a de novo enquiry by the Sales Tax Officer. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be sustained. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, for passing an order as required under section 11(8) of the Act. It may be observed that it shall be open to the Tribunal to refer the case back to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for deciding the appeal on merits. This revision succeeds and is accordingly allowed with costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 391 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aid submission is also without substance. There is nothing in the impugned notification dated 23rd June, 1988 which restricts the grant of exemption only to small-scale industries manufacturing footwear in the State of Rajasthan. The scope of the exemption granted under the notification is wide enough to cover all small-scale industries manufacturing footwear in the country. It cannot, therefore, be said that the impugned notification has been intended to confer a benefit on small-scale industries manufacturing footwear up to Rs. 20 located in the State of Rajasthan only. The decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Mehta, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in those cases, the relief was expressly confined to the manufacturers within a particular State only. No other contention has been urged. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 390 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act co-exist. If that be so then it follows that under the provisions of section 13AA they are liable to pay additional tax of 2 per cent on the purchase price of goods so used in the manufacture. Thus the prescription under section 13AA, existence of facts as required under that provision and inevitable liability to pay the additional tax are all the relevant features coexisting and consequently the challenge to the levy of such tax and the relief for claiming refund of this tax, which is already levied also must fail. 70.. In this view of the matter all the petitions would obviously fail. 71.. Rule in all the three petitions is discharged. There would, however, be no order as to costs in either. 72.. At this stage the petitioners pray for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Since we have decided the question on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court we do not think that this is a fit case for grant of any such leave. Hence leave refused. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 389 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it has been imposed without recording a finding that the assessee had without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Rajasthan Act within the time allowed. In reply, Sri P.K. Bhansali, Advocate, requested for the remand of the case on this point. The case relates to the assessment year 1972-73. It will be too much to expect from the assessee now after a lapse of about 15 years to furnish reasonable cause for his failure to file the returns within time. 14.. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 388 of 1985 is allowed and the Revision Petition No. 92 of 1987 is partly allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue setting aside the interest are set aside. The orders imposing interest of Rs. 13,579 in Revision Petition No. 92 of 1987 and Rs. 27,443 in Revision Petition No. 388 of 1985 are restored. Parties will bear their own costs in both these revisions. Petition No. 388 of 1985 allowed. Petition No. 92 of 1987 partly allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 388 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner that the aluminium pipes which were sold by the assessee along with the sprinklers were used for sanitary purposes. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the sale of aluminium pipes by the assessee did not fall within the ambit of entry No. 41 of the notification dated 8th March, 1969 but was covered by the residuary entry No. 79 and, therefore, it was taxable at 7 per cent and not at 10 per cent. Question No. (1) must, therefore, be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the decision on question No. (1), question No. (2) does not arise for consideration because even if the sale consideration for sprinkler is split up into the sprinkler and aluminium pipes it would not make any difference because the rate of tax for both is the same, namely, 7 per cent, under the residuary entry. In the circumstances, the revision is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 387 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion has not been disposed of by the Divisional Level Committee up-till now. It is expected that the Divisional Level Committee will now dispose of the review application at the earliest. As the review application of the petitioner has not been disposed of as yet and the liability of the petitioner to pay sales tax still depends on the fate of the aforesaid application, the interest of justice requires that the properties of the petitioner may not be sold till the review application is finally disposed of by the Divisional Level Committee. It is being made clear that in pursuance of the impugned notices it will be open for the respondents to attach the properties of the petitioner from which the impugned dues can be recovered. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. A certified copy of this order shall be issued to the learned counsel for the parties by Monday on payment of usual charges. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (7) TMI 386 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... king material and that there was an implied agreement in this case to sell the empty tins along with the vegetable oil contained therein and they were charged separately, and tins were, therefore, taxable at the rate of 3 per cent, which was the rate applicable on the packing material and not at 7 per cent, the rate applicable to vegetable oil. The said case was also between the same parties, namely, the applicant-assessee and the Commercial Taxes Officer. The present case is fully covered by the said decision and in view of the said decision the revision is allowed and it is held that the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the empty tins used as packing material for vegetable oil were also to be taxed at 7 per cent instead of 3 per cent under the notification dated 27th March, 1971. The assessing authority is directed to make a fresh assessment with regard to the sales tax payable on the packing material. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 385 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spell out the vice of discrimination. The State has to run on taxes and various avenues for the purpose are tapped by it. The current legislation has to cope up with the changing situations and keep legitimately States coffers full for expending. Therefore, we are of the considered view that classifying replay of video tapes, video cassette and video records through the medium of any video tape player, video cassette player, etc., is a species apart on which separate entertainment duty could, without violating article 14 of the Constitution, be leviable. In order to be fair to Mr. Sibal, we must also notice that in Deep Snack Bar s case AIR 1984 P and H 377, this Court had held that both the cinemas and video tape exhibitions were cinematographs coverable under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. That per se would not lead us anywhere so as to touch even remotely the question dealt with heretofore. Finding no merit in the petition, we dismiss it in limine. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 384 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In other words, the Government can withdraw an exemption granted by it earlier if such withdrawal could be done without offending the rule of promissory estoppel and depriving an industry entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax under the said rule.......................... As a result of the above discussion, I allow these petitions and hold that the notification dated 30th December, 1987, annexure P.2, does not apply to the industrial units of the petitioners. They are entitled to the exemption from payment of tax on the basis of the exemption certificates granted in their favour by the Assessing Authority on the entire turnover irrespective of the fact whether or not it exceeds Rs. 6 lacs in a year. Such exemption is to remain in force in the case of the petitioners for a period of two years from the date of grant of the exemption certificates by the Assessing Authority. In the circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 383 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o documents in order to satisfy the conscience of this Court that the sales tax dues are not outstanding. On the other hand, he has taken the vague and unsustainable plea that all papers pertaining to sales tax were destroyed in a flood in the year 1973. Such a plea cannot be entertained by this Court when called upon to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. On the other hand, the requisition (annexure 1) and the certificate of demand (annexure 2) are based on public records maintained in due course of official business which cannot be disbelieved without there being any material to the contrary. It is also to be emphasised that a person should not be allowed to avoid payment of the legitimate dues of Government which is public revenue on a vague and unsustainable plea. 8.. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any material to interfere. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. V. GOPALASWAMY, J.-I agree. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 382 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioner had total lack of jurisdiction to levy the additional tax in dispute. We, therefore, feel that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills case 1983 53 STC 315 AIR 1983 SC 603 will not apply to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, it appears to us that it is a technical objection being raised on behalf of the assessing authority inasmuch as the alternative remedy pleaded by way of appeal also lies to the High Court. On the facts of the case, this is a fit one for interference under article 226 of the Constitution in view of the total lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in imposing the additional tax under section 5-A of the Act. We would accordingly quash the order dated 9th July, 1986 passed by the Commissioner for the aforesaid three assessment years. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs in the present proceedings. The writ petition is allowed to aforesaid extent. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (7) TMI 381 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 3(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act has the power to transfer any case or cases relating to any assessee or class of assessees pending before an assessing authority to another assessing authority having jurisdiction to deal with such case or cases . The Sales Tax Officer, Irinjalakuda, having jurisdiction over the area where the factory of the petitioner is situated, is an officer to whom the Deputy Commissioner could legitimately transfer the records of the petitioner. Why it was so transferred is not a matter for the Deputy Commissioner to explain to the petitioner. It is purely an administrative order made solely in the exigency of administration. In such matters, there is no need for the petitioner to be heard see Tilak Raj v. State of J. and K. 1982 49 STC 220 (J and K). I see no merit in the contentions to the contrary. The original petition is dismissed. No costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 28611 of 1986 in O.P. No. 8553 of 1986-R. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
