|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 655 Records
-
2005 (7) TMI 632 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the petitioner 39 s case in the context of old notification of 1981 (October 23, 1981). Whatever benefits which are provided under the exemption notification dated October 16, 1986, were all granted to the petitioner. Mere mention of date of notification in the form by the petitioner does not give it any right to claim exemption of any notification of its choice. The respondents were, therefore, fully justified in examining the case of the petitioner in the light of exemption notification No. A-3-11-86-ST(v)74, dated October 16, 1986 as it was this notification which was holding the field at the relevant time and governed the cases of new industries. Now that period of exemption is over in 1993, no reliefs as such can be granted to the petitioner after the lapse of 12 years. It should feel satisfied of what it got by way of exemption in payment of sales tax on its goods. I am, therefore, unable to notice any merit in this petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (7) TMI 631 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vy and charge of interest on Central sales. It was held that in absence of substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest, resort to State Sales Tax Act cannot be had. Subsequently, the Parliament amended the Central Sales Tax Act by Act No. 10 of 2000 and inserted section 9(2B). Section 120 of Amending Act 10 of 2000 contains validation clause. The validity of the aforesaid amendment was challenged in the case of Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2003 38 STR 588 on the ground that the insertion of sub-section (2B) in section 9 on May 12, 2000 is prospective and is not retrospective. This court has upheld the validity of the aforesaid Amending Act and has held that the liability to pay outstanding interest is there and shall always be there on the unpaid Central sales tax. The revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the second appeal filed by the dealer-opposite party before the Tribunal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (7) TMI 630 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r. Mehta (R 1). What more clinching and conclusive evidence was required for recording a finding of concluded sale (inter-State) against the petitioner. The entire object of the inquiry is to find out the true nature of transaction. It varies from case to case as to what material is relied on or needed to hold the nature of transaction to be A or B or C . In my opinion, once the case is remanded then the assessing officer has full power to go into each and every document seized as also relied on by the assessee for recording a finding one way or other. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that once the tax has been paid by the branch the impugned orders become bad in law. I find no merit. Firstly, no such plea was raised before authorities. Secondly, there is nothing on record to justify the impugned order already passed. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am unable to notice any infirmity in the impugned orders. As a result, the petition fails and is dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 629 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (2), it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby have been sold within the State by the owner of the vehicle and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5) of section 5, be assessed to tax by the officer empowered in this behalf in the prescribed manner. (5) If the owner of the vehicle having obtained the transit pass as provided under sub-section (1) fails to deliver the same as provided under sub-section (2), he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding double the amount of tax leviable on the goods transported. In the light of such enabling provisions, it cannot be contended that levy of tax and penalty is in violation of article 265 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether the amount of tax levied is correct or not is a matter which is not necessary to be gone into by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, if the petitioner has not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 628 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d terms of the contract clearly show two things (1) That the assessee (Government Department), supplying the cement to the contractor and (2) The contractor has no right to lift the cement at his discretion. 6.. As such, the supply of cement by the Government Department to contractor, for its own work, cannot be said to be sale for the purposes of Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it does not fulfill the definition of sale , as contained under section 2(h) of the said Act. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1978 42 STC 386 (SC) 1979 UPTC 826 and U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Karyalaya, Bulandshahr v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1990 78 STC 417 (All.) 1989 UPTC 1010, it has been clarified that supply of cement by the department to its contractor is not sale. 7.. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no error of law committed by learned Sales Tax Tribunal. As such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. And the same is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 627 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pt the said submission for the reason that section 2(ee) defines manufacturer and provides that in relation to any goods, the manufacturer means the dealer, who makes first sale of such goods in the State after they are manufactured. Since, sale could not have been made to himself by the assessee, as such, it cannot be said to be the first sale in the State. Therefore, the assessee, cannot be said to be the manufacturer. That being so, there appears no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Sales Tax Tribunal that the assessee was not liable to pay tax on sonth , purchased from cultivators and sent directly outside U.P. to other dealers. It is significant to mention here that there was no purchase tax on the purchaser of sonth for the assessment year in question. 5.. In view of the above discussion, the question of law is answered in negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 626 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 ("the CF Act") - levy of additional court fee - HELD THAT:- The adoption of the machinery under the KGST Act for the collection and enforcement of the tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1976 makes the provisions of the KGST Act applicable to such matters. Therefore, the Tribunal constituted under the KGST Act is authorised to hear the matters relating to the CST Act. The provisions of section 76(1) of the CF Act get attracted to such situations also. The levy of a fee, as already noticed, is a matter of fiscal policy and the lack of perfection in a legislative measure does not necessarily imply its unconstitutionality. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the State, one ought not to be heard to contend that no law that arrived after him shall bind him.
Conclusions: - i. Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala Act 10 of 1960), is valid.
ii. The fee payable as per the Notification S.R.O. No. 226/2002 published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 420 dated April 5, 2002, has to be on the amount of the tax in dispute.
iii. Such fee is payable only on appeals/revisions arising from assessment orders issued in relation to and from the assessment year in which the said notification was issued on April 5, 2002.
iv. The circular issued by the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal will be read subject to the aforesaid modifications.
v. The levy as per S.R.O. No. 226/2002 shall be in terms of the declarations contained herein. It is so directed.
vi. The mode of collection shall be such that it is ensured that the amounts collected as per S.R.O. No. 226/2002 shall be credited to the legal benefit fund, since such credit is provided for.
The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms, with the declarations and directions as aforesaid. The levy as per S.R.O. shall be in terms of the declarations contained herein. It is so directed.
Writ petitions disposed of.
-
2005 (7) TMI 625 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ne of the directions of section 18. The assessing officer, in my view proceeded in the wrong premises, legal as well factual, thus vitiating the impugned orders of reassessment by an incurable illegality. The statutory appellate authorities also were unmindful of the true purport of the taxing provisions of the Act and proceeded on the basis that the petitioners 39 sales turnover were computable on the average wholesale market price structured on the materials furnished by the Chambers of Commerce and the Wholesale Onion Dealers 39 Association without reference to the actual sale transactions effected during the relevant period. 34.. In the above view of the matter, the impugned assessment orders as well as the orders of the statutory appellate authorities referred to above being in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Act and the Rules are unsustainable in law and are hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed
-
2005 (7) TMI 624 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the penalty imposed is not justified. The view taken by the Tribunal is against the law. When it is clear that the assessee did issue false form III-C(2) and consequently he did invite penalty under section 15A(1)(l), the Tribunal cannot hold that the penalty imposed by the department was wrong merely on the ground that the Department did not actually incur the loss after the issuance of false form III-C(2) was detected. Had the illegal act on the part of the assessee not detected, he would have been successful in getting evaded sales tax, payment of which was liable to be made by the purchasers in second sale. 5.. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is not hesitant in holding that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the question mentioned above is answered in favour of the Revenue, and, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated September 30, 1992 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Petition allowed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 623 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s to the year 1986-87, for which year the tax on sugar was exempted under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The sugar is always sold in gunny bags as it is packed in gunny bags before it is stored for sale. The assessee is the manufacturer of sugar and was not supposed to keep it in loose without any packing. 4.. Merely on the basis of the fact that the sugar was sold in gunny bags by the manufacturer, it cannot be said that the assessee has sold the gunny bags. There is nothing on the record to establish that there was any direct agreement between the assessee and the purchaser of sugar for sale of gunny bags for the specific amount as consideration. Since no price was paid for the gunny bags, there cannot be said to be sale of gunny bags, as it does not come within the definition of sale , in view of section 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. 5.. In view of the above discussions, the revision has no force and the same is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 622 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly show that only if the goods in question is non-exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act, that sub-section will not apply. There is no case for the department that cattle feed is not an item liable to be taxed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act at the relevant time. Gunny bags so imported are also used for packing the cattle feed manufactured by the dealer to whom it was sold. Hence merely because the manufacturer of cattle feed was exempted from payment of tax will not disentitle the respondent from claiming concessional rate of tax based on form 18 declaration issued by the buyer. 8.. Hence we hold that the Tribunal is not in error in holding that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax in respect of sale of gunny bags to the manufacturer of cattle feed. We answer of question in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... them in the sale conditions so that, the purchasers shall be made aware of and be bound by those conditions. As stated earlier, the division Bench had pointed out that this problem was arising every year and the respondents should have taken care to incorporate proper conditions in the sale notice. 23.. While allowing this writ petition, it is made clear that the entitlement for the benefit of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act would be decided by the taxation authorities independently on the basis of form H and other papers submitted by the petitioner without being influenced by any of the findings contained herein, which have been rendered only in the context of liability for demurrage and penal interest. Whether the export orders are genuine and conform to the requirements under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act or not are matters to be considered independently. The writ petition is allowed subject to the above observations. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 620 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ven effect by the Assessing Authority. The said provision does not contemplate any application of refund on the part of the assessee. The interest for the delay can be denied if such delay is beyond the control of the authority or attributable to the dealer. The mere fact that the dealer was not running around the Assessing Authority to seek refund is not a reason which can be attributed to the dealer for delay in allowing the refund. In fact, the respondents have not given any reason which can be said to be beyond the control of the Assessing Authority for the delay in allowing refund nor any other reason is attributed to the dealer. Thus, we allow the present writ petitions and hold that in terms of subsection (3) of section 12 of the Act, the dealer is entitled to simple interest for the period and at the rate mentioned. The interest so accruing to the petitioner shall be payable within three months from the date certified copy of the order is received by the respondents.
-
2005 (7) TMI 619 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... jharfanoos, etc. In view of the said circular there is no difficulty in treating lamp shades, globe, chimney and jharfanoos, etc., as glasswares mentioned in the notification dated August 29, 1987. I hardly see any application of this circular to the present controversy. It does not in any manner advance the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the dealer-opposite party. The reason being that automobile toughened safety glass, including wind screen, door screen, side screen and back screens are themselves finished items and they do not stand at par with the items like lamp shades, globe, etc. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order of the Tribunal holding that automobile toughened safety glass, wind screen, etc., as glasswares , within the meaning of the notification under section 4-B of the Act cannot be sustained. The order of the Tribunal including the order of the first appellate authority is set aside. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (7) TMI 618 - SUPREME COURT
Award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the respondent Rudhan Singh with continuity of service and 50% back wages dismissed challenged
Held that:- In the case in hand the respondent had worked for a very short period with the appellant, which was less than one year. Even during this period there were breaks in service and he had been given short term appointments on daily wage basis in different capacities. The respondent is not a technically trained person, but was working on a class IV post. According to the finding of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court plenty of work of the same nature, which the respondent was doing, was available in the District of Rohtak. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to payment of any back wages.
The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court insofar as it directs reinstatement with continuity of service is upheld but the award regarding payment of 50% back wages is set aside.
-
2005 (7) TMI 617 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Commissioner and an application can be entertained by it under sub-section (2) of section 67 and sub-section (3) lays down that the order of the Authority would be binding on the applicant who seeks the clarification. It would also be binding on all officers other than the Commissioner and the order passed under sub-section (2) of section 67 on the motion of a dealer himself would be final unless an appeal is filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of the ruling in the manner prescribed. The proviso to sub-section (4) of section 67 makes it abundantly clear that any order passed by the Authority under section 67 is appealable before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the appeal must be filed within the period of thirty days of the ruling. 3.. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed. Oral.
-
2005 (7) TMI 616 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 112 (1988) 35 ELT 605 was considered by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Pefco Foundry Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune (1993) Supp. 1 SCC 74. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Company case 1988 71 STC 112 (1988) 35 ELT 605 (SC) was rendered on the basis of an admission made by the railways that what was supplied was in rough machined or forged condition. The court held that Cylinder liner manufactured by the manufacturer out of iron casting was not mere iron casting and it was identifiable as a machine part. Hence, the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Company case 1988 71 STC 112 (SC) (1988) 35 ELT 605 (SC) does not help the assessee. Hence, in our opinion, elastic rail clips manufactured and sold by the assessee cannot be considered as a declared goods . 31.. In view of the above, there is no force in this writ petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 615 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ture. 12.. On behalf of the Revenue, it is contended that the applicant had voluntarily registered itself as a dealer under section 22(5A) and therefore, it is liable to sales tax. As pointed out earlier, the applicant contends that registration was only in respect of generation and distribution of electricity. Thus, there is a dispute about the purpose and the scope of registration. For the purpose of this reference, registration under section 22(5A) is irrelevant and therefore, we refuse to express any opinion about the same. 13.. For the reasons discussed above, it must be held that the applicant was not carrying on business qua its transport activities during the relevant period and was not a dealer within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 14.. In the result, we answer questions (a), (b) and (c) in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. The reference is disposed of accordingly. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that learned counsel for the respondents, at the conclusion of arguments on 7th April, 2005, said that he would be filing an application in the matter, presumably praying that the matter be remanded for de novo adjudication. No such application was filed and we were told that the matter may be disposed of on merits. The question of a remand now does not arise nor do we think it is justified because the respondents have not placed any material, even before us, to suggest that the transactions entered into by the petitioner in the course of its bullion trade show that bullion and not cash was brought from Jaipur to Delhi for sale in Delhi. 31.. Under the circumstances, for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 31st March, 2001 and the order passed in revision dated 6th August, 2004 are not sustainable in law. There is no option but to quash them. It is ordered accordingly and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 613 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cludes green fodder, chuni, bhusi, chhilka, chokar, javi (popularly known as ghurjai), gowar, de-oiled cake, de-oiled rice polish, de-oiled rice bran or de-oiled rice husk, but not including oil-cake (khali), rice polish, rice bran or rice husk. In view of said notification, for the assessment years under consideration, only oil cake, rice polish, rice bran and rice husk, cannot be exempted from the tax but same is not the case in respect of the other cattle feed, which are included under the definition of cattle fodder. 4.. In view of the aforesaid position of law, there is no error in the impugned judgment dated February 11, 1994 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, as the department has not shown, if any of the items in respect of which the assessee was the dealer, were covered under the exceptions as mentioned above. 5.. In the circumstances, the question of law, as to the definition of cattle fodder is answered accordingly and the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
............
|
