|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 160 Records
-
1979 (8) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g the restrictions. There cannot be any analogy between two cases unless the language is identical in all respects. In view of this we are clearly of the opinion that the decision of the Bench of this Court in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 S.T.C. 263. does not require any reconsideration and following that decision it must be held that having regard to the facts of this case, namely, that the appellant herein had preferred an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 707 of 1971, which has been disposed of on 9th August, 1972, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner purporting to exercise its powers under section 34(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 26th August, 1974, is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 202 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e been filed before the lower authority, and having received it, it may either dispose of it itself, or direct the lower authority to dispose of it on the merits. Perhaps it could itself excuse delay, thereby passing, as appellate authority, the order which the lower authority should have passed. But, having dismissed the application to excuse delay filed before it, to direct the assessee to file the application before the lower authority, and, for that purpose alone, to set aside the order of the lower authority, is unjustified. We have deprecated the Tribunal passing such type of orders in the decisions earlier referred to. In the light of the principle of those decisions, we allow these revisions and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment and in the other decisions referred to herein. We make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the assessee then pointed out that he has pleaded before the Tribunal that in case the Tribunal felt any difficulty in reviewing the order, it could at least treat the application as one under section 55 for rectification of the error in its order. The Tribunal has not dealt with it as an application under section 55. If it has to be construed as an order under section 55 also, then there could be no revision against the said order. Section 55(4) provides that the provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision shall apply to an order of rectification made under this section as they apply to the order in respect of which such order of rectification has been made. The rectification contemplated by this provision would be an order rectifying the earlier order and not an order refusing to rectify an earlier order. The revision would fail on this ground also. The revision accordingly fails and is rejected with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 200 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Civil Procedure Code, order has been defined in section 2 as Order means the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree. A recovery certificate is neither a formal expression of a decision nor a command or mandate as such it cannot be considered to be an order. The analogy that it is in the nature of execution proceedings is not applicable. And even if it is so, the appeal would be under section 9 only if it is held that it was an order. It is not the effect but the form of the order, which is determinative of the remedy of appeal. The view taken by the appellate authority, therefore, was correct. In the result, these revisions succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is set aside. The question of law raised by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, is decided by saying that no appeal lay against the recovery certificate. The Commissioner shall be entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Petitions allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 199 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice (exhibit 3) may be in substantial compliance with section 12 of the Act but none the less it was not in the prescribed form S.T. 12A under rule 55A of the Rules and, therefore, it was invalid. Both the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Abbasali Asgarali v. Sales Tax Officer, PaliD.B. Writ Petition No. 76 of 1963 (Rajasthan High Court). But we do not think it necessary to express any opinion on or to decide the question regarding the validity of the notices (exhibits 1, 2 and 3) and whether the notice (exhibit 8) is in continuation of the notice (exhibit 3) because, in the writ petition, the petitioner did not claim any relief for quashing these earlier three notices. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in this writ petition and dismiss the same. However, there will be no order as to costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 198 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s proposed in the Ordinance, contemplated reimbursement to a person by whom tax was paid. This scheme, however, did not find favour and when the Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 1 of 1973, the section replaced was as quoted above. The difference in the language of the section as contained in the Ordinance and as replaced in the Act makes it further clear that the earlier proposal to refund the amount only to a person by whom the tax was paid was given up and it was provided to be given to a person by whom the inter-State trade or commerce has been made. By section 31 read with sub-section (2) of section 1, the operation of section 29-B has been made retrospective from 1st October, 1958. The amendment was, therefore, fully applicable to the payment of tax in the year 1969-70. In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed. The assessee shall be entitled to its cost, which is assessed at Rs. 300. The fee of the standing counsel is assessed at Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 197 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed or used in chemistry. The word has been judicially construed in the U.S.A. There it means a substance used for producing a chemical effect or produced by a chemical process. There is no finding or evidence that adhesive was obtained or used in chemistry or that it was a substance used for producing a chemical effect or produced by a chemical process. In the absence of a finding on any of these aspects, it is difficult to uphold the order. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Revising Authority is set aside. He shall decide the revision afresh. As nobody appeared for the assessee there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 196 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... High Court by referring to a passage in Encyclopaedia Britannica. What is actually done is to dehydrate the milk or take the water out of the milk, so that the milk can with added preservative stand for a long time. Such milk does not cease to be milk because the water content has been reduced or removed. This is what happens in every kitchen every day while boiling, and boiled milk does not cease to be milk. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that merely because there is some process employed, the milk has ceased to be milk. The popular concept of milk also does not appear to be different. We understand that even the bottled milk supplied by the Madhavaram Dairy where also some process is employed is not subjected to tax. The authorities themselves Here italicised. appear to understand that bottled milk is nothing but milk. The conclusion cannot be different in the present case also. The revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 195 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d condoned the delay in filing the application. The Tribunal having condoned the delay, it was not open to it to review it, as there was no apparent error on the face of it. An erroneous decision on a question of fact or law is no ground for reviewing a judicial order since it is not an error apparent on the face of the record (see Budhram Kashiram v. State of Bihar 1970 26 S.T.C. 505. and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AnantapurA.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1372. Annexure-7 was, therefore, passed without jurisdiction and must be quashed. 7.. For the reasons stated above, the applications are allowed let a writ of certiorari issue quashing the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 29th March, 1972, contained in annexure-7 in each case. The Tribunal will now dispose of the reference applications filed by the petitioner. There will be no order for costs. U. C. SHARMA, J.-I agree. Applications allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 194 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) is in the negative. Answer to question No. (v).-In view of our interpretation, the answer is in the negative. In answer to question No. (vi), we hold that freight charges paid by the coal retailers are liable to be included in the sale price and turnover of the dealer. The words cost of freight separately charged occurring in section 2(h) connote that the intention of the parties (as disclosed in the contract of sale) must unequivocally be that freight charges will not form part of the sale price. In the absence of any such evidence produced by the dealer, our view is that freight charges should be included in the sale price, since, as a commercial transaction, it is inconceivable that a dealer will bear the freight charges himself. However, in this case, the department may examine whether the dealer is entitled to the benefit of the circular referred to in para 7 of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (M.D. Singh) dated 25th October, 1972. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1979 (8) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on should be given effect to from 1st July, 1957. We do not find anything in principle which would differentiate the present case from the one decided by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Cooper and Co. 1968 22 S.T.C. 111. Following the said judgment, we hold that the notification has to be taken into account for the whole year 1970-71 only and not merely with reference to the period subsequent to 13th July, 1970, the date on which the notification came to be issued. Any other conclusion would render the assessee being liable to tax to one part of the year and not being liable to another part of the year. Unless there is anything in the notification itself which shows that the notification is to be operative only from a particular date, a reasonable construction of the notification would be that it comes into force from the 1st day of the financial year in which the notification is issued. The revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 192 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red to the fact that after the supply of yarn to Messrs. Ramesh Silk Fabrics an endorsement has been made on the allotment order as to the fact of supply by the petitioner, represented by its agent at Bombay. These things make it absolutely clear that the indent on 23rd May, 1964, was placed by the petitioner s Bombay agent for despatch of goods from Sirumughai to Bombay only for the purpose of complying with the allotment orders and for the purpose of compliance of which the petitioner s agent at Bombay had already entered into agreement with the allottees concerned for getting the goods from Sirumughai and delivering the same to them. Under the above circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the transactions involved in the present tax revision cases fell within the scope of section 3(a) of the Act and that, therefore, they were rightly assessed to tax under that provision. Accordingly, these tax revision cases are dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (8) TMI 191 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and was taxable at 6 per cent. Similar view was taken in jackard Machinery Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1975 35 S.T.C. 508 1974 U.P.T.C. 626., where handloom kargha and its parts were held to be machinery and machinery parts liable to be taxed as such under Notification No. ST-7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965. In view of these decisions air blowing instrument falls within the category of a machinery because it is an instrument designed to transmit and modify the application of power, force and motion. It transmits energy or force from one point to another. No doubt, it is a simple appliance but none the less comes within the category of machinery within the purview of the notification dated 1st October, 1966, and the sales thereof would attract tax at 6 per cent and not at 2 per cent. The view taken by the learned revising authority was, thus, erroneous in law and cannot be sustained. The revision is hence allowed with Rs. 200 as costs. Petition allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 190 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... apply and that in respect of the transaction of the dealer, there was in fact a collection of tax which took it out of the scope of the notification. It has been held by this Court that the amount received by the dealer from the purchaser was only a deposit and not a collection of tax and, therefore, the dealer is entitled to the exemption under the notification of the Pondicherry Government dated 21st November, 1967. This decision, in my opinion, would apply to the facts of the present case where the amount had been collected by the petitioner not as sales tax as such, but as Association Fund when tax cases were pending in this High Court. Since the amount had not been collected as sales tax, it is not open to the respondent to demand payment of the same, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the waiver provided for in G.O. Ms. No. 2600, Revenue, dated 4th November, 1969. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 189 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g the tinned oil, he also sells the tins and the price which he charges includes the price of the tin also. In such a context, section 7-A(b) of the Act is not attracted because the section uses the expression disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State . In this case, the tins are sold in the State as part of the tinned oil. Hence the tax case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 188 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ply satisfies the conception thus explained by the Supreme Court and answers also to the principles of interpretation sanctioned by the judicial decisions. Arrow-root is one of those vegetables grown both in the kitchen garden and in a farm. It has brisk sales in the market as children s food. Just as carrots, radish, ginger, etc., pass as vegetables, we have little doubt that arrow-root will also qualify for inclusion in the term. 4.. A Division Bench of this Court had recently occasion to consider and explain the meaning of the entry in Evans Food Corporation v. State of Kerala 1978 42 S.T.C. 7 1978 K.L.T. 396. In the light of the principles noticed in the judicial decisions and the popular concept of the term vegetables , we are of the opinion that arrow-root is a vegetable within the meaning of entry 10 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The decision of the Tribunal is correct. We dismiss the revision with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 187 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e matter, it is unnecessary to further investigate and examine the other points raised in the writ petition or the contentions advanced at the Bar. The petitioner has to succeed in obtaining a writ of mandamus in his favour by directing the respondent to deliver the account books as per exhibit A forthwith. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is already under threat by the concerned assessing authority for not filing the return in accordance with law for the year 1978-79 and that he is unable to do so without the account books. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the return of the books of account and other records as per exhibit A within one week from today. The petitioner, however, if directed to produce the books before the assessing authority, shall do so. 6.. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to costs. 7.. Advocate s fee is Rs. 100. This order shall be communicated forthwith to the respondent. Petition allowed.
-
1979 (8) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in sales of cement effected by the appellant under the Cement Control Order, 1967, the amount of freight formed part of the "sale price" so as to be exigible to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Having regard to the opinion of the Law Department of the Government of India, no clause was introduced in the contract with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals providing for reimbursement of the amount of sales tax to the appellant in case the appellant was liable to pay the same under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. We thought that in the absence of any such clause in the contract, there would be no legal liability on the Central Government to pay to the appellant the amount of sales tax on the freight component of the price in respect of transactions of sale of cement entered into by the appellant with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals
-
1979 (8) TMI 176 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent, directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... ding-up have to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Sri N. Seshachary sought to contend that section 458A does not apply to the instant application as it is filed under order VI, rule 17, CPC. But this argument is devoid of any force. The substantive relief claimed in the application by way of an amendment falls under section 543(1). Therefore, the provisions of section 543(2) and section 458A are attracted to this application and as such the application is in time. Various other objections were raised on merits with regard to the reliefs claimed by way of amendment but these are all matters for which objections can be raised, after the amendment is allowed. Accordingly, the application for amendment is allowed as prayed for. It will be open to the respondents to file an additional counter to the main Company Application No. 40 of 1978. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The costs of the liquidator will come out of the estate.
-
1979 (8) TMI 175 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... ll continue. The two requisition meetings scheduled to be held on the 10th August, 1979, called by the two groups of requisitionists, will be held only for the purpose of adjourning the same for a period of one month. The joint special officers are appointed at a remuneration of 60 G.Ms, each per month until further orders of this court. The joint special officers and all parties to act on a signed copy of the minute. The respondents will file their affidavit-in-opposition by 13th August, 1979, and the matter to appear at the top of the list on 22nd August, 1979. The above order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties at this stage. The remuneration of the special officers will be paid out of the funds of the company. So far as the clerk of Mr. Sarkar is concerned, he will be sanctioned a sum of Rs. 100 to be paid by the company out of the funds of the company through the special officers. Formally stay was asked for and formally it was refused.
........
|
