Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1988 1988 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 216 Records

• 1988 (9) TMI 349
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Accrual of rights to respondents pursuant to the sanction granted under Ex. P-4.
  2. Authority of the Government to cancel the sanction under Ex. P-4.
  3. Validity of the cancellation order under Ex. P-7 in terms of natural justice, application of mind, and influence of irrelevant grounds.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Accrual of Rights to Respondents:
  The Supreme Court examined whether the respondents acquired any rights pursuant to the sanction granted under Ex. P-4 for opening new schools or upgrading existing schools. The Court held that the sanction under Rule 2A(5) did confer on the respondents a right to seek the continuance of the statutory procedural stream in order to have their applications considered under Rule 9 and dealt with under Rule 11. The Court noted that the respondents could not be non-suited merely because they had opened new schools prematurely, as Section 3(5) of the Act does not totally ban the establishment of new schools without following the procedure but only disentitles them to Government recognition.
  
  2. Authority of the Government to Cancel the Sanction:
  The Court addressed whether it was open to the Government under the Act and Rules or under Section 20 of the Kerala General Clauses Act to cancel the sanction given to 91 approved applicants for opening new schools or upgrading existing schools. The Court concluded that the Government did not have the authority to cancel the approval granted under Rule 2A(5) based on a revised policy. The Rules do not provide for the Government to review or revoke a sanction order once it has been granted under Rule 2A(5), and the Government's power of revision under Rule 12 is confined to reconsidering the case of any applicant whose name did not find a place in the final list of approved applications.
  
  3. Validity of the Cancellation Order:
  The Court examined whether the cancellation order under Ex. P-7 was vitiated by non-observance of the principles of natural justice, non-application of mind, and influence of irrelevant grounds. The Court found that the impugned order under Ex. P-7 was indeed vitiated by these factors. The order was passed without giving the respondents any opportunity to be heard, and the reasons provided for the cancellation were based on extraneous factors that were not new developments but existed even when the Government took steps under Rule 2 to identify inadequately served areas.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the respondents are entitled, on the basis of the earlier order passed in their favor under Ex. P-4, to seek continuance of the statutory procedure to have their applications considered under Rule 9 and for appropriate orders being passed under Rule 11 in accordance with law. The Court made it clear that it was not making any pronouncement about the suitability or otherwise of the respondents to be granted permission under Rule 11.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 348
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the entertainment duty imposed on video game parlours under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 as amended by Act No.7 of 1987.
  2. Whether the tax is imposed on the act of entertainment or on the machine itself.
  3. Whether the provisions of the Act are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of the Entertainment Duty:
  The petitioners, proprietors of video game parlours, challenged the provisions of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 as amended by Act No.7 of 1987, arguing that the duty imposed is on the machine itself, which is beyond the legislative competence and not covered by Entry No.62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. They contended that the tax should be on the act of entertainment and not on the equipment. The respondents argued that the video game or video show is exigible to tax under Section 3 of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Geeta Enterprises v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that video games fall within the purview of the word "entertainment" as envisaged in sub-sec. (3) of Section 2 of the Act.
  
  2. Tax on Act of Entertainment vs. Machine:
  The petitioners argued that the tax levied is hypothetical and notional, as it is imposed on the machine regardless of its use, which makes it a tax on the machine itself rather than on the act of entertainment. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Cantonment Board Poona, which stated that a tax should be imposed on every instance of the exercise of the particular trade, calling, or employment. The respondents countered that the tax is based on the entertainment received by the patrons and that a lump sum duty is the only feasible method. The court found that the tax is in substance on the act of entertainment, as the machine is merely a criterion for calculation. The provisions of Section 4C of the Act, which allows for remission or refund if the machine remains inoperative, further support this view.
  
  3. Discrimination and Article 14:
  The petitioners contended that the provisions are discriminatory as they treat unequals equally, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the classification is area-wise and rational, as video game parlours in Bombay make more profits due to higher patronage. The court held that the classification is reasonable and not violative of Article 14, citing the Supreme Court's observation in State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya, which emphasized that tax laws must respond to local needs and courts should be aware of their limited familiarity with these needs. The court noted that the classification is based on the average takings of video game parlours and is thus justified.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the lump sum entertainment duty imposed on video game parlours is legal and within the legislative competence. The tax is on the act of entertainment rather than on the machine itself, and the classification made under the Act is reasonable and not discriminatory. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 347
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Constitutionality of different eligibility conditions for Diploma-Holders and Graduates for promotion in DDA.
  2. Validity of High Court's judgment declaring differential treatment as unconstitutional.
  3. Applicability of relevant Supreme Court precedents.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Constitutionality of Different Eligibility Conditions

  The principal controversy was whether the Rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for Diploma-Holders and Graduates for promotion from the cadre of Junior-Engineers to that of Assistant-Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant-Engineers to that of Executive-Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and would, therefore, require to be declared void.

  The High Court, in the writ petitions filed by the Diploma-Holders, has held that such differential treatment of Diploma-Holders and Graduates by the prescription of different standards of service-experience for purposes of eligibility for promotion to the higher cadres is unconstitutional.

  Issue 2: Validity of High Court's Judgment

  The High Court heard these two petitions together and by its common judgment dated 2.9.1987 upheld the challenge and declared the different standards of service-experience prescribed for Degree-Holders and Diploma-Holders in respect of both the cadres as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

  The High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 771. The High Court drew a distinction between the situation where diploma-holders were wholly excluded from eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre and the situation where, while they were considered eligible for promotion, however, were subjected to more onerous and less advantageous conditions for such promotion.

  Issue 3: Applicability of Relevant Supreme Court Precedents

  The High Court placed reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. UOI and Others,[1975] 1 SCR 449, H. C. Sharma and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., [1983] 3 SCR 372 and Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, and Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors.,[1986] 4 SCC 617 and T.R: Kapur and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 SC 415.

  In State of Mysore v. Narasinga Rao,[1968] 1 SCR 40 1 higher educational qualifications were considered relevant for fixation of higher pay-scales. In Union of India v. Mrs. S.B. Kohli,[1973] 3 SCR 117 the requirement of a post graduate specialisation in the particular discipline was considered not irrelevant and a classification based on such specialisation was upheld.

  Triloki Nath Khosa's case is more directly in point. There, Graduate-Engineers and Diploma-Holders were in a common-cadre of Asst. Engineers. But for purposes of further promotion to the higher cadre of Executive-Engineers only the Graduate were held eligible. Diploma-Holders were barred for promotion. Repelling the challenge to this provision made by the Diploma Holders, this Court said:

  "The classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree-holders and Diploma-holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumption evidence of a higher mental equipment."

  Conclusion:

  The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 2.9.1987, and dismissed the Civil Writ Petitions No. 2132 of 1984 and 2082 of 1984 in the High Court. The Court held that the prescriptions of different standards and conditions for eligibility based on educational qualifications and service-experience were justified and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

  Appeals allowed.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 346
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Constitutional validity of the fee imposed u/r 21 of the Textiles Committee Rules, 1965.
  2. Whether rayon yarn and nylon yarn fall within the definition of "textiles" u/s 2(g) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963.
  3. Whether there is a correlation between the fee charged and the services rendered by the Textiles Committee.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of the Fee Imposed u/r 21 of the Textiles Committee Rules, 1965
  The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the fee imposed u/r 21 of the Textiles Committee Rules, 1965. The fee was levied by the Textiles Committee constituted u/s 3 of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963, on the production of rayon yarn and staple fibre. The Court concluded that the fee was valid and constitutionally permissible, dismissing the appeals filed by various textile mills.
  
  Issue 2: Definition of "Textiles" u/s 2(g) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963
  The Court rejected the appellants' contention that rayon yarn and nylon yarn, being filaments and not fibres, did not fall within the definition of "textiles" u/s 2(g) of the Act. The Court held that rayon yarn and nylon yarn are species of man-made fibres, also known as artificial silk, and thus fall within the definition of "textiles" as per the Act. The Court emphasized a broad and liberal construction of the term "textiles" to include man-made fibres, aligning with the legislative intent to support the textile industry.
  
  Issue 3: Correlation Between the Fee Charged and the Services Rendered
  The Court found a reasonable relationship between the fee levied and the services rendered by the Textiles Committee. The fee collected was used to finance the Committee's activities, including inspection, quality control, and promotion of textile exports. The Court noted that the entire proceeds of the fee were utilized for the benefit of the textile industry, establishing sufficient quid pro quo. The Court cited the principles laid down in previous judgments, emphasizing that the correlation need not be of mathematical exactitude but should be reasonable.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions filed by the textile mills, upholding the validity of the fee imposed by the Textiles Committee. The Court also allowed the appeal by the Textiles Committee against the Kerala High Court's judgment, affirming the levy of the fee as constitutionally valid.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 345
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Concept and Character of Court Fees:
  - Whether the levies of court-fee under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ("Karnataka Act") and the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 ("Rajasthan Act") satisfy the requirements of a 'fee' or par-take the character of a 'tax'.
  2. Ad-Valorem Levy Without Upper Limit:
  - Whether the levy of court-fees on an ad-valorem basis without an upper limit renders the impost a tax.
  3. Arbitrariness and Article 14 Violation:
  - Whether the distribution of the burden of fees on an ad-valorem basis is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  4. Discrimination in the Bombay Act:
  - Whether the provisions of Section 29(1) read with Entry 10 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 ("Bombay Act") are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  
  Summary of Judgment:
  
  1. Concept and Character of Court Fees:
  - The court examined whether the levies under the "Karnataka Act" and the "Rajasthan Act" satisfy the concept of a 'fee' as distinct from a 'tax'. It was held that if there is a broad and general correlation between the amount raised and the expenses involved in providing the services, the impost would par-take the character of a 'fee'. The court found that the financial statements provided by the States of Karnataka and Rajasthan established the requisite correlation. Therefore, the contention that the levies were taxes was insubstantial.
  
  2. Ad-Valorem Levy Without Upper Limit:
  - The court addressed the argument that an ad-valorem levy without an upper limit ceases to be a 'fee' and becomes a 'tax' when the correlationship between the levy and the service breaks down. The court held that once a broad correlation between the totality of the expenses on the services and the totality of the funds raised by way of the fee is established, the levy retains its character as a 'fee'. The court did not find the argument that the levy becomes a tax beyond a certain point to be substantiated.
  
  3. Arbitrariness and Article 14 Violation:
  - The court considered whether the ad-valorem principle for distributing the burden of court fees is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It was argued that the ad-valorem principle is inappropriate for a fee meant to cover the cost of services. The court, however, recognized that the State has the discretion to choose a reasonable and practical basis for the levy. The court concluded that the ad-valorem principle, while not perfect, is not so irrational as to be unconstitutional. The court suggested that the States should rationalize the levies to avoid pricing justice out of reach for many litigants.
  
  4. Discrimination in the Bombay Act:
  - The court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision that the levy of court fee on proceedings for grant of probate and letters of administration ad-valorem without an upper limit is discriminatory. The court agreed that there is no rational basis for singling out this class of litigation for an ad-valorem impost without the benefit of an upper limit, as prescribed for all other suits and proceedings. The court found this to be a violation of Article 14 and dismissed the appeals by the State of Maharashtra.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the appeals, writ petitions, and special leave petitions, but recommended that the States rationalize the levies to ensure that justice is not priced out of reach for many litigants. The court emphasized the importance of access to justice and suggested that the States consider lower rates for smaller claims and an upper limit for larger claims.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 344
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of amended Special Rules to vacancies arising before the amendment.
  2. Legality of direct recruitment against temporary vacancies post-amendment.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Applicability of Amended Special Rules to Vacancies Arising Before the Amendment
  The core issue was whether the amendment to the Special Rules on 28.4.1980 applied to vacancies that arose before the amendment date. The Tribunal held that the amendment applied to all vacancies, irrespective of when they arose. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the amendment's language, specifically the word "arising," indicated it applied only to vacancies occurring after the amendment date. The Court referenced the case of Eramma v. Verrupanna & Ors., [1966] 2 S.C.R. 626, to support its interpretation. The Court concluded that the amendment did not affect vacancies that arose before 28.4.1980, thus allowing the State Government to fill 37-1/2 per cent of the total vacancies (both substantive and temporary) by direct recruitment as per the rules in force before the amendment.
  
  Issue 2: Legality of Direct Recruitment Against Temporary Vacancies Post-Amendment
  The Tribunal had directed the State Government to refrain from making any direct recruitment against temporary vacancies based on the amended Special Rules. The Supreme Court found this direction unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the amendment did not retroactively apply to vacancies that arose before its enactment. Therefore, the State Government's decision to fill 51 vacancies by direct recruitment, based on the pre-amendment rules, was valid. The Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to address other contentions raised by the petitioners, which were not decided due to the Tribunal's initial ruling.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that the amendment to the Special Rules on 28.4.1980 did not apply to vacancies that arose before that date. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration of other issues raised by the petitioners. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 343
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector.
  2. Validity of the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti.
  
  Summary:
  
  Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector:
  The High Court held that the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to inquire into the matter under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act. This point was conceded by both parties before the Supreme Court, and thus, it was not disputed that the Additional Collector had the authority to act in this case.
  
  Validity of the Settlement:
  The primary issue was whether the settlement made by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti in favor of the respondents was in accordance with the law. The respondents, businessmen residing in Kanpur, were not agriculturists and did not fall into any category of landless persons dependent on agriculture. The Additional Collector found that the respondents had obtained the grants fraudulently by misrepresenting themselves as landless persons. The High Court, however, quashed the Additional Collector's order, maintaining that the respondents were covered by the definition of landless persons as per Sec. 14 of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1968.
  
  The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. It emphasized that the term "landless persons" should be understood in the context of the Bhoodan Yagna movement, which aimed to distribute land to landless agricultural laborers whose main source of livelihood was agriculture. The Court noted that the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna, as reflected in Sec. 15, intended to benefit those who were genuinely landless and dependent on agriculture.
  
  The Supreme Court also referred to the amendment in 1975, which substituted "landless agricultural labourers" for "landless persons" in Sec. 14, indicating that the original intent was to benefit agricultural laborers. The Court concluded that the High Court's interpretation was contrary to the purpose and philosophy of the Bhoodan Yagna movement.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the orders passed by the Additional Collector. The appellant was entitled to costs of the appeals, with counsel fees of Rs. 1,500 in each of the three appeals. Appeals allowed.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 342
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Non-publication of the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  2. Allegation of acquisition for profiteering by the Government.
  3. Compliance with the provisions of Part-III of the Act regarding acquisition for a company.
  4. Application of Government policy decision regarding restraint in the acquisition of agricultural land.
  5. Allegation of discrimination in the acquisition process.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Non-publication of the substance of the notification u/s 4(1):
  The appellants contended that the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) was not published in the locality. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, provided evidence of publication through loud announcements and beating of empty tins, with reports documented in Roznamcha Vakyati. The Court found that the notification was indeed published, as evidenced by the objections filed by 157 landowners. Thus, the contention was rejected.
  
  2. Allegation of acquisition for profiteering:
  The appellants argued that the acquisition was a profiteering venture by the Government, acquiring land at low prices and reselling at high profits. The Court noted that the land was acquired for development and industrialization, with HUDA making external developments before transferring the land to HSIDC. The Court found no evidence of profiteering, as the appellants failed to substantiate their claims with relevant facts and evidence. The contention was deemed devoid of merit.
  
  3. Compliance with Part-III of the Act:
  The appellants claimed that the acquisition was for HSIDC, a 'company' u/s 3(e) of the Act, and thus invalid for non-compliance with Part-III provisions. The Court clarified that HUDA was the acquiring authority, not HSIDC, and the land was transferred to HSIDC for development purposes. The contention was rejected.
  
  4. Application of Government policy decision:
  The petitioners argued that the Government did not apply its mind to its policy decision of exercising restraint in acquiring agricultural land. The Court held that the Government must balance the need for industrial development with agricultural needs. The vague allegation of non-application of mind was unsupported by material evidence and thus overruled.
  
  5. Allegation of discrimination:
  The petitioners claimed discrimination as their land was acquired while others' land was not. The Court stated that the Government acquires land based on necessity and suitability for the public purpose. The contention was found to be without merit.
  
  Additional Directions:
  The Court directed that if any appellant or petitioner, rendered landless by the acquisition, applies for land allotment, HSIDC should consider the application with priority, provided conditions for allotment are met and plots are available. Additionally, the appellants were allowed to make a representation regarding the exemption of land comprising a temple, Piaou, and Dharamshala from acquisition.
  
  Conclusion:
  All appeals and writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 341
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the respondent's industry manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp falls under any category mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
  2. The constitutional validity of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of Industry
  The primary issue was whether the respondent's industry, which manufactures Rayon Grade Pulp, falls under any category mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, for the purposes of levy of Water Cess. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Rayon Grade Pulp is not covered by any of the items specified in Schedule I, which includes industries like "Ferrous metallurgical industry," "Non-ferrous metallurgical industry," "Mining industry," "Ore processing industry," "Petroleum industry," "Petro-chemical industry," "Chemical industry," "Ceramic industry," "Cement industry," "Textile industry," "Paper industry," "Fertilizer industry," "Coal (including coke) industry," "Power (thermal and diesel) generating industry," and "Processing of animal or vegetable products industry."
  
  The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that the Act is fiscal in nature and must be strictly construed. The Court noted that the industry should be classified based on its predominant purpose and process, not by any ancillary or incidental processes. The Court rejected the contention that Rayon Grade Pulp could be considered part of the chemical, textile, or paper industries, stating that the industry does not predominantly involve chemical activities.
  
  Issue 2: Constitutional Validity
  The High Court had rejected the contention challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. However, this issue was not under consideration before the Supreme Court as the petitioner, Andhra Pradesh State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, did not challenge this finding.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the respondent's industry manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp is not liable to pay cess under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, as it does not fall under any of the specified industries in Schedule I. The petition was dismissed.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 340
  

  Whether there is need for the continuance of the Order of injunction passed by this Court on 25th August, 1988?

  Held that:- As the Issue is not going to affect the ,general public or public life nor any injury is involved, it would be proper and legal, on an appraisal of the balance of convenience between the risk which will be caused by the publication of the article and the damage to the fundamental right of freedom of knowledge of the people concerned and the obligation of Press to keep people informed, that the injunction should not continue any further.

  In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct that there is no further need for the continuance of the injunction. Publications, if any, however, would be subject to the decision of the Court on the question of the contempt of court, namely, prejudging the issue and thereby interfering with the due administration of justice. Preventive remedy in the form of an injunction is no longer necessary. Whether punitive remedy will be available or not. will depend upon tacts and the decision of the matter after ascertaining the consent or refusal of the Attorney-General. The application for the present purpose is, therefore. disposed of with the direction that the injunction against publication in the order dated 25th August, 1988, need not further continue.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 339
  
  Issues:
  - Determination of tax liability on the purchase of "goat hair" and "goat hair strings" for manufacturing "goat hair patties" for export.
  - Interpretation of whether "goat hair patties" and "goat hair" or "goat hair strings" are distinct commodities for tax purposes.
  - Application of relevant legal principles to decide if a manufacturing process has taken place.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of Rajasthan addressed three sales tax revision petitions concerning the tax liability of assessees manufacturing "goat hair patties" for export. The assessees purchased "goat hair" and "goat hair strings" to produce the patties, paying sales tax at full rates. The assessing authority imposed purchase tax under section 5A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the tax rate, leading to appeals by both the assessees and the department before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order, varied the tax rates for different periods, prompting the assessees to file revision petitions challenging the decision.
  
  During the proceedings, the assessees argued that since the sales were for export and the goods retained their original identity, no tax should be charged. They relied on legal precedents such as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers and Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka to support their position. On the other hand, the department contended that "goat hair patties" were distinct from the raw materials and fell under section 5C of the Act, not section 5(1). The department also argued that the Tribunal's findings were unchallenged and the revision petitions were not maintainable.
  
  The Court examined the arguments presented and the legal principles cited by both parties. It considered whether "goat hair patties" and the raw materials were distinct commodities or the same for tax purposes. Referring to relevant case laws like Commercial Taxes Officer v. Sakariya Textiles, the Court emphasized that if a manufacturing process resulted in a new commercial product with a changed identity, it constituted a different commodity. In this case, the Court found that the manufacturing process transformed "goat hair" and "goat hair strings" into "goat hair patties," creating a new product with a different identity. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to levy tax at varying rates under section 5C for different periods.
  
  In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petitions, ruling that the goods involved were distinct commodities, justifying the differential tax rates imposed by the Tribunal. The Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and rejected the petitions with no costs awarded to either party.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 338
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh decided that bringing paddy into the local area and exporting it as rice attracts entry tax. The judgment was in favor of the department and against the assessee. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 337
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of Section 2(t) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, as amended by Act 23 of 1983.
  2. Validity of explanation (3A) inserted by Karnataka Act 23 of 1983 to the definition of "sale."
  3. Legality of assessments for the periods prior to 7th September 1978.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Section 2(t) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, as amended by Act 23 of 1983:
  
  The petitioners, hoteliers running restaurants with attached lodges, challenged the assessments for the years 1976-77 and 1978-79 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. They contested the validity of Section 2(t) of the Act, as amended by Act 23 of 1983, arguing it was ultra vires of Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982. The amendment aimed to address the Supreme Court's decision in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1978] 42 STC 386, which held that service of meals in hotels or restaurants did not constitute a sale of food for sales tax purposes but was a service.
  
  2. Validity of explanation (3A) inserted by Karnataka Act 23 of 1983 to the definition of "sale":
  
  Explanation (3A) was inserted with retrospective effect from 1st October 1957, defining transactions involving the supply of food or drink as sales. The petitioners argued there was no machinery provision in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act to enforce this amendment for restaurants. The court noted that the amendment was intended to validate the levy and collection of tax on food sales in hotels and restaurants between the judgment in the Associated Hotels of India case [1972] 29 STC 474 and the date of the constitutional amendment. The court found that the amendment to the Constitution and the corresponding state law amendments were sufficient to validate the tax.
  
  3. Legality of assessments for the periods prior to 7th September 1978:
  
  The primary question was whether the assessments taxing turnovers related to the sale of food and drink by restaurant owners for periods before 7th September 1978 were valid. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in the Associated Hotels of India case [1972] 29 STC 474 and Northern India Caterers case [1978] 42 STC 386, which held that the supply of food in hotels and restaurants was a service, not a sale. However, the court also noted the Supreme Court's clarification in the review of the Northern India Caterers case [1980] 45 STC 212, stating that if the dominant object of the transaction was the sale of food, it was subject to sales tax.
  
  The court rejected the petitioners' argument that there was no law to tax the sale of food and drink before 7th September 1978, noting that the turnover was taxed under the general provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The petitioners had filed returns and paid taxes on the sale of food and drink, and there was no evidence they did not collect the tax. The court found that the assessments were valid and dismissed the writ petitions.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court upheld the validity of Section 2(t) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, as amended by Act 23 of 1983, and explanation (3A) to the definition of "sale." The court also found that the assessments for the periods prior to 7th September 1978 were valid, rejecting the petitioners' arguments that there was no law to tax the sale of food and drink during that period. The writ petitions were dismissed.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 336
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 43 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 regarding imposition of penalty.
  2. Consideration of explanation offered by the assessee for the differences between tax assessed and tax returned.
  3. Application of provisions of section 43 before and after January 19, 1976.
  4. Justification of upholding imposition of penalty by the Tribunal.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of section 43 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 regarding imposition of penalty
  
  The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties under section 43 of the Act on the assessee, M/s. Food Corporation of India, for differences between the tax assessed and tax returned. The Tribunal relied on legislative changes eliminating the need to establish dishonest intention for concealment. The Court observed that the Tribunal's approach was flawed as it mechanically established concealment based on tax variations without considering the assessee's explanation.
  
  Issue 2: Consideration of explanation offered by the assessee
  
  The Tribunal failed to consider the explanations provided by the assessee for the differences in tax amounts. The Court emphasized the importance of assessing the validity of the explanations before imposing penalties under section 43. The Court noted that the Tribunal's failure to evaluate the explanations was a critical error in its decision-making process.
  
  Issue 3: Application of provisions of section 43 before and after January 19, 1976
  
  The Court highlighted the difference in the wording of section 43 before and after January 19, 1976. It noted that the Tribunal incorrectly applied the current provisions to cases predating the legislative changes. The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing the penal nature of section 43 and the requirement of establishing a guilty mind for penalty imposition, especially for periods before January 19, 1976.
  
  Issue 4: Justification of upholding imposition of penalty by the Tribunal
  
  The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decisions upholding penalties were unjustified due to the failure to assess the explanations provided by the assessee and the incorrect application of section 43 provisions. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the penalties imposed were not justified based on the circumstances and explanations presented. The Court answered all questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
  
  In conclusion, the Court found in favor of the assessee, ruling that the penalties imposed under section 43 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 were not justified. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the explanations provided by the assessee and correctly applying the relevant provisions of the Act. The Tribunal's decisions were overturned, and the Court made no order as to costs for the references.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 335
  
  The Allahabad High Court quashed an order by the Sales Tax Tribunal directing the inclusion of freight in taxable turnover, stating that if freight was separately charged, it should not be included. The decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling overturning a previous decision by the High Court. The writ petition was allowed with costs.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 334
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in a reference under the Entry Tax Act that market value for entry tax assessment on arhitya should be the price paid to farmers plus commission, excluding sales tax and other taxes. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld, citing a previous case precedent. The reference was answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 333
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of the term "cotton" in the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 to include "cotton waste" and exemption from taxation, interpretation of "cotton yarn" to include "cotton yarn waste" and exemption from taxation, applicability of section 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 to reopen completed assessment.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of GAUHATI was tasked with interpreting the term "cotton" in the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 to determine if it includes "cotton waste" and is exempt from taxation. The Assam Board of Revenue had previously held that "cotton waste" is distinct from "cotton," and similarly, "cotton yarn waste" is distinct from "cotton yarn." The Court examined the definitions in Schedule III of the Act, noting that the term "cotton" was substituted with "cotton and cotton yarn" in 1956. The Court referenced Black's Law Dictionary and previous case law to understand the distinction between "cotton" and "cotton waste."
  
  In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Ganga Dal Mill & Co., the Supreme Court discussed the definition of "cotton" in relation to ginned and unginned cotton, emphasizing that cotton waste is a residue of ginned cotton and not a by-product. The Court also referred to Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of A.P., where various tests were laid down to identify commodities for taxation purposes, favoring interpretations that benefit the assessee. The Court applied the common-sense rule of interpretation to conclude that "cotton waste" falls under the category of "cotton," and "cotton yarn waste" falls under "cotton yarn," exempting them from taxation.
  
  The third issue regarding the applicability of section 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 to reopen completed assessments was not pressed for an answer by the assessees' counsel. Therefore, the Court did not provide a ruling on this question. The judgment answered the first and second questions in the affirmative, in favor of the assessees and against the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the reference was answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 332
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Taxability of cycle locks under entry 14 versus entry 150 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
  2. Interpretation of legislative history and amendments concerning cycle locks.
  3. Validity of the Commissioner's circular classifying cycle locks under entry 150.
  4. Application of common parlance theory and functional character in determining tax classification.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Taxability of Cycle Locks under Entry 14 versus Entry 150:
  The primary issue is whether cycle locks should be taxed under entry 14, which pertains to "bicycles, tandem cycles, cycle combinations and parts and accessories and tyres and tubes thereof," or under entry 150, which covers "all kinds of padlocks and locks." The petitioners argue that cycle locks have historically been treated as accessories to cycles and should continue to be taxed under entry 14. The respondents, represented by the learned Government Pleader, argue that cycle locks fall under the specific entry 150 introduced on November 18, 1983, and should be taxed accordingly.
  
  2. Interpretation of Legislative History and Amendments:
  The legislative history shows that cycle locks were initially taxed as accessories to cycles under entry 14 from 1958. This entry was omitted in 1980, exempting cycle parts and accessories from tax. In 1987, entry 14 was reintroduced, reviving the tax on cycle parts and accessories. The petitioners contend that the consistent treatment of cycle locks as accessories for over 25 years should continue. The court examined the legislative amendments and the consistent view taken by the department in taxing cycle locks as accessories.
  
  3. Validity of the Commissioner's Circular:
  The Commissioner issued a circular in 1987 classifying cycle locks under entry 150, which the petitioners challenged. The court considered whether the circular was justified based on the amendment introducing entry 150. The respondents argued that the circular provided correct guidance for taxing cycle locks under the newly introduced specific entry. The court needed to decide if the insertion of entry 150 changed the taxability of cycle locks, previously treated as accessories under entry 14.
  
  4. Application of Common Parlance Theory and Functional Character:
  The petitioners argued that cycle locks should be understood in common parlance as accessories to cycles, given their predominant use and functional character. They cited several decisions supporting the view that the purpose and predominant use of an article should guide its classification. The court considered precedents like the Supreme Court's decision in Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which emphasized the functional character and common identification of products. The respondents sought to distinguish these decisions, arguing that entry 150 specifically covered all kinds of locks, including cycle locks.
  
  Judgment:
  The court concluded that cycle locks should be taxed under entry 14 as accessories to cycles. It emphasized the consistent treatment of cycle locks as accessories for over 25 years and their identification in common parlance and trade as cycle accessories. The mere insertion of entry 150 did not change their taxability under entry 14. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Atul Glass Industries and Annapurna Carbon Industries, which emphasized the functional character and predominant use of products in determining their classification. The petitions were allowed, and the court declared that cycle locks should be taxed under entry 14 of the Second Schedule.
  
  Writ Petitions allowed.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 331
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that ambulance and delivery vans are entitled to a reduced tax rate of 10% as per a government notification, despite not being specifically mentioned in the notification. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the reduced tax rate applies to these vehicles. The reference was answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1988 (9) TMI 330
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature to enact the Act under Entry 52 of List II.
  2. Nature of the tax levied by the Act.
  3. Definition and scope of "local area" under the Act.
  4. Uniform rate of taxation and its compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution.
  5. Compliance with Article 301 and Article 304(b) of the Constitution.
  6. Validity of the President's assent.
  7. Laying of Rules before the Legislature.
  
  Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:
  
  1. Legislative Competence:
  The petitioners argued that Entry 52 of List II is meant exclusively for augmenting the income of local authorities, and the Act, which raises revenues for the State Government, is beyond the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. The Court held that the State Legislature has the exclusive power to make a law imposing taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use, or sale therein, and the Act is within its legislative competence. The Court concluded that the absence of a provision in the Act to make over the tax collected to local authorities does not invalidate the Act.
  
  2. Nature of the Tax:
  Petitioners contended that the tax levied by the Act is essentially a sales tax on sales tax. The Court found no substance in this argument, stating that sales tax and entry tax are provided by different entries in List II, i.e., Entry 54 and Entry 52, respectively. The machinery created under the Sales Tax Act being employed for the purpose of implementing the Act does not make it a sales tax on sales tax.
  
  3. Definition and Scope of "Local Area":
  Petitioners argued that the entire State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be treated as one local area. The Court clarified that "local area" means an area under the administration of a local authority, like a municipality or a gram panchayat, and the Act does not declare the entire State as one local area.
  
  4. Uniform Rate of Taxation:
  Petitioners claimed that a uniform rate of taxation without reference to population and volume of business conducted in a particular area violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that the levy of a uniform rate of tax is not discriminatory or violative of Article 14, as the tax is unrelated to the services rendered or facilities provided by a particular local authority.
  
  5. Compliance with Article 301 and Article 304(b):
  Petitioners argued that the tax constitutes a restriction on the freedom of trade and movement guaranteed by Article 301. The Court found no material to show that the tax impedes the free flow of trade, commerce, or intercourse. Even if it does, the rate of tax is reasonable, and the assent of the President cures any defect in not obtaining the previous sanction before introducing the Bill.
  
  6. Validity of the President's Assent:
  Petitioners contended that the President's assent is invalid as it is contrary to assurances given by the Prime Minister. The Court found no substance in this argument, noting that the Act received the President's assent, which cures any procedural defects.
  
  7. Laying of Rules before the Legislature:
  Petitioners argued that the Rules have not been laid before the Legislature as required by sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Act. The Court noted that this contention was not raised in the writ petitions and was informed that the Rules were indeed laid before the Legislative Assembly in the first session after they were made.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Goods into Local Area Tax Act, 1987. The oral request for a certificate under Article 132 of the Constitution was also rejected.

  ---

123456........ 11