|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 474 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 523 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, is, on the admitted facts as disclosed by the assessing authority himself in his application under section 10-B for reassessing admittedly, did not exist earlier. In view of this we are clearly of the opinion, this could not be a case covered under section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In fact, proceedings under section 21 initiated by respondent on three different occasions for the same assessment year in question either in appeal or after remand before the assessing authority are still pending. Accordingly we hold that impugned notice dated September 18, 1982, for the assessment year 1974-75 (annexure 10 to the petition) is not sustainable and hereby quashed and the proceedings in pursuance to the same are also set aside. The petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs. But it is without prejudice to the right of the respondents to raise such points as permissible under law in other proceeding pending. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 522 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been filed by the Revenue aggrieved by such an order of the Tribunal. In the light of the view that we have taken, the decision in Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills 1976 38 STC 238 (Mad.), is no longer a good law and it is accordingly overruled. The correct legal position is reflected by the decision in Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited 1985 60 STC 113 (Mad.) the finding of the Tribunal in its common order in respect of the present Tax Case Nos. 474 to 478 relatable to transport subsidy requires to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 60.. For the reasons as above Tax Case Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993 shall stand dismissed. However, as stated above, the transport subsidy is set aside. 61.. Both Writ Petition Nos. 15530 and 15531 of 1995 are dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 24693 of 1995 is also dismissed. 62.. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in all these tax cases and the writ proceedings. Tax cases and writ petitions are dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 521 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Agencies STI 1994 All. 212. From the perusal of the assessment orders we find they merely followed the decision of Ganga Devi Agencies STI 1994 All. 212 to tax the commodity as the unclassified and not more than. This reinforces the fact that notices were issued and orders are passed solely on the basis of decision of this Court earlier. Thus the last contention on behalf of respondents has no merits. 18.. In such cases it would be futile to send a dealer either before the appellate or revisional authorities under the Act. 19.. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed. Orders passed in proceedings as a consequence of the impugned notices under section 21/10B of the Act are hereby quashed. Where the notice or proceedings are still pending and no order is yet passed, such impugned notices under section 21/10B of the Act are quashed. This is without prejudice to the right of the respondents if any, to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 520 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his objections. The notice is said to have been received only on May 6, 1996 and the petitioner by his letter dated May 15, 1996 sought for time till May 31, 1996, but the authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order of assessment on May 13, 1996 itself. On this ground, it is urged that proper opportunity had not been given to the petitioner. This again is a matter which can be agitated before the appellate authority in a regular statutory appeal. 2.. In the view I have taken, I am not entertaining this writ petition and the same is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to file an appeal and seek a stay of recovery of the tax assessed. However, with a view to give protection to the petitioner, till he files an appeal, I direct the respondent not to enforce the assessment order for a period of fifteen days from today. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 12286 of 1996, is also dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 519 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... second of the abovementioned situations is present. But then it has to be further examined whether any one of the three requirements, is also fulfilled. Admittedly, requirement (a) is not attracted because it is nobody s case that the milk has been consumed in the manufacture of other goods for it is for the conversion of milk into spray baby milk powder which does not amount to manufacture. It is a settled position so far as this State is concerned. Requirement (b) is also not fulfilled because Revenue is not contending that the assessee has disposed of the spray milk in a manner other than by way of sale. Indeed, it appears that the goods are meant to be sold. Regarding the third requirement (c) also there is no dispute that it does not apply. If that be the position, then section 6-A cannot be invoked to levy sales tax on the purchase of milk. In that view of the matter, we confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision case. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 518 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e power under section 9(2) is subject to the provisions of the Central Act and the Rules made thereunder, in our view, the period of limitation prescribed under the Central Rules in rule 14-A(8)(b) would apply to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. If that period of limitation is applied, the starting point of limitation would be from the date of expiry of the year to which the tax relates. In the instant case, the tax relates to the assessment year 1972-73 and that year expired on March 31, 1973. The period of four years from that date would come to an end by March 31, 1977. The Deputy Commissioner passed the order of revision on February 27, 1981 which is far beyond the period of four years, as such it is barred by limitation. 12.. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal Warranting our interference. The tax revision case is dismissed accordingly but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 517 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... isdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 19(1) of the Act on the basis of audit report. The report could furnish no cause. A different interpretation is not enough. The authority was required to show that sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax was under-assessed or had escaped assessment or was assessed at a lower rate. That is not the case here. 9.. In our view, the aforesaid decision in the case of Telangana Steel Industries 1994 93 STC 187 (SC) concludes and clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. The Government Advocate has nothing to submit to the contrary. 10.. Exconsequenti, we answer the aforesaid questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 11.. This miscellaneous civil case thus, stands decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 12.. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary under the law. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (7) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... make him a non-existent dealer. 7.. The learned Government Pleader, however, contends that to claim exemption, the burden is on the respondent-assessee to show that indeed purchases are made. First of all, this point was not urged before the Tribunal. But even otherwise, having regard to the finding of the Tribunal that it was not the case of the department that the bills were not issued by M/s. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rice and Oil Merchants, Narasaraopet and that the respondentassessee filed purchase invoices as well as way bills to show that it made purchases and the goods had in fact moved by road from Narasaraopet to Nandyal and the way bills were checked at the Commercial Tax Department check-posts on the way, we hold that the appellant had discharged the burden that the goods were purchased by it from a dealer who was identifiable. 8.. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the tax revision case and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exempting Notification II No. FD 69 CET 92 dated April 30, 1992. Though this notification was subsequently cancelled by notification dated March 31, 1994 but that is also not of much consequence because by Notification No. FD 112 CET 93(III) dated March 31, 1994, tax on motor vehicles and parts and accessories thereof were levied only in case these goods brought in the local area for consumption and use therein. Admittedly, the petitioner had brought parts and accessories in question not for consumption or use but for sale. Therefore, this and the subsequent notifications are also inconsequential for the present case. 10.. In view of the discussions as above, in my opinion, the circular of the Commissioner at annexure A cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The respondent-assessing officer is directed to complete the assessments in keeping with the law laid down herein. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the said extent. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or forfeiting the amount of tax it was between assessee and Nigam. The only question for consideration was whether the amount in question was illegally and unauthorisedly collected by the assessee or not. 7.. In the present case, the authorities totally misdirected themselves because it transpires from the record that at the time when the collection was made, the assessee was fully justified in collecting the amount and thereafter deposited it in the State treasury. There is no mens rea on the part of the assessee to collect the tax illegally. The levy of the penalty should have some element of dishonesty or a deliberate violation of any of the provisions of the Act or some mens rea, but there was none in the present case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the approach of the assessing authority was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. 8.. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (7) TMI 513 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... - dent therein was liable to be taxed as declared goods and that when separate commercial commodities are made out of cast iron like C.I. pipes, and man-hole covers or machine parts, they cease to be cast iron and cannot any longer be treated as cast iron under sub-item (i). 9. From the above discussion it follows that when castings of cast iron are marketed in the crude form they would be within the meaning of cast iron under sub-item (i) of entry 2 of the Third Schedule but if the cast iron castings are converted after necessary refinement into separate commercial goods like machine parts, etc., they cannot be treated as cast iron castings so as to fall within the said entry and cannot be treated as declared goods . 10.. Having applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court, referred to above, in the light of the findings of the Tribunal, we held that the answer to the question can only be in the negative. The T.R.C. is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hould have levied the maximum penalty permissible in law. 4.. In so far as the levying of the penalty is concerned, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel but with regard to the quantum of the penalty, the contention, in our view, is not without any substance. We have already noted above the relevant provision under which the penalty is levied. A perusal of that provision makes it clear that it is only when the failure is not wilful that the quantum of penalty shall not exceed one half of the tax due. Therefore, the penalty, not exceeding one half of the tax due, is the maximum penalty. No circumstances have been indicated as to why levy of the maximum penalty in this case having found that the failure was not wilful, is justified. In the circumstances, we reduce the penalty to one-fourth (1/4th) of the tax due. 5.. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 511 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provision is on the statute book from its inception except the change of percentage of the rate of tax and the turnover limit in regard thereto. The question of amendment does not come into the picture for consideration in the context of the factual matrix. For the above reasons the T.R.C. stands dismissed. Petition dismissed. The case is taken up for final hearing. Heard arguments by Mr. A.C. Maitra, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. M.C. Mukhopadhyay, learned State Representative appearing for the respondents. 2.. This is an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging assessment order dated June 30, 1988 for the 4th quarter ending March 31, 1982 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the appellate order dated June 10, 1993 passed by the Assistant Commissioner not only confirming the assessment order, but also enhancing the turnover. From the said appellate order a revision was preferred before the Additional
-
1996 (7) TMI 510 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gment of this Court in Board of Trustees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust v. Commercial Tax Officer 1979 43 STC 36 where a similar question arose for consideration. The question was whether the sales of documents when the tenders were invited, were incidental to the business of the Port Trust. The Bench took the view that the charging of fees for the supply of tender forms and tender specifications would not amount to carrying on business in that commodity even within the widest meaning of the term business . Applying that ratio, it was held in Housing Board s case 1988 70 STC 203 (AP) 1988 6 APSTJ 206 that the sale of tender forms does not attract the liability to sales tax. Following the abovesaid judgments, we hold that the cost of the tender schedules is not exigible to sales tax. The order of the Tribunal under revision taking contrary view is, therefore, set aside. The tax revision case is partly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 509 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ect. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. 1989 72 STC 280 (SC) AIR 1988 SC 2223, wherein their Lordships have observed as under It is well-settled, as mentioned before, that where no definition is provided in the statute itself, as in this case, for ascertaining the correct meaning of a fiscal entry, reference to a dictionary is not always safe. The correct guide, it appears in such a case, is the context and the trade meaning. In this connection reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. S.N. Brothers, Kanpur 1973 31 STC 302 AIR 1973 SC 78 at page 80, para 5. Therefore vertical pump which is used in water coolers cannot fall within the definition of pumping set by any stretch of imagination. 5.. We answer the question in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (7) TMI 508 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be rejected on two counts. Firstly no such plea has been raised in the writ petition and there is no factual foundation for the argument that the petitioner is not liable to pay purchase tax in view of the provisions contained in 1957 Act . Secondly item No. 5107.10(b) of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1957 refers to shoddy woollen blankets whereas purchase tax is on the raw material used for manufacture such blankets and, therefore, provision of 1957 Act cannot be invoked for claiming exemption from payment of purchase tax under 1948 Act. 9.. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. The question referred by the Sales Tax Tribunal is also answered against the assessee. However, we direct that levy of interest upon the petitioner should be decided afresh in the light of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in United Riceland Limited v. State of Haryana 1997 104 STC 362. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 507 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department, as regards section 17(3)(b) of the Act. 12.. Our answer is with reference to section 17(3)(b) of the Act, as submitted by both the sides, on modification of the question in that regard. Precisely for this deviation and departure, we deem it proper to reserve liberty to the Tribunal to restate the case and re-refer the question on the linchpin of section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the Act, once it is understood by it that the answer is sought and required to be given on that basis only or to resort to some other appropriate proceedings for this purpose. The counsel for both the sides indicated no objection to such a liberty and course. The Tribunal shall have four months time from the receipt of the copy of this order to act in this manner. 13.. This Misc. Civil Case stands disposed of with no orders as to costs. 14.. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (7) TMI 506 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... er cent of investment in fixed capital or seven years whichever was earlier. The promise made by the non-applicants was not in conflict with law or contrary to public policy. It was acted upon in good time by the applicant. The essential ingredients of promissory estoppel exist. This promise cannot be broken and has to be kept. The State Government is free to alter the Incentive Schemes but that would only be with prospective effect for those who respond to the modified schemes. 36.. In this view of the matter the third question does not arise. 37.. The application is accepted. The impugned assessment order of March 24, 1995, is set aside. It is declared that as long as the applicant is not in breach of the conditions on which the eligibility certificate was granted he would be eligible for 100 per cent exemption of sales tax subject to a ceiling of 100 per cent of investment in fixed capital or for seven years whichever is earlier. No order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 505 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... itional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department dated February 5, 1996 of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, is set aside (ii) the proceedings initiated under section 12 of the RST Act pursuant to the impugned order against the applicants with respect to the sale of leaf springs made prior to the impugned order are also set aside (iii) it is declared that leaf springs under the Notification No. F.4(7)FD/ Gr. IV/92-70 dated March 4, 1992 were covered under item No. 105 for goods not covered by item Nos. 1-104 and the general rate of tax was applicable (iv) it is directed that the sales made by the applicants in the interregnum between the making of the impugned order and this judgment on which tax has been collected in accordance with the impugned order shall not be liable for reassessment on the basis of this judgment and, further, (v) it is declared that sales of leaf springs are not exigible to tax as parts of motor vehicles. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 504 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 10(6) or interest could be charged under sub-section (1) of section 11-D of the Act when tax was not paid according to the return filed. Payment of tax is, therefore, linked with the filing of the return. Under the scheme of the Act, tax becomes due only when the return is filed or when the tax is assessed or quantified by the Assessing Authority and demand notice is issued. The question referred for opinion by the Sales Tax Tribunal does not specify the sub-section of section 11-D of the Act but simply refers to section 11-D which, in our opinion, does not clearly and succinctly make out a case for opinion distinguishing sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 11-D. From the facts of the case and from the order of the Assessing Authority charging interest, the question for opinion is found to be relatable to sub-section (1) of section 11-D of the Act. Both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Reference answered in the negative.
........
|
