|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 295 Records
-
1992 (9) TMI 344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ubject to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to exemption in respect of the sale value of gunny bags in which the salt has been packed and sold, the principle enshrined in section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act becomes wholly irrelevant for the case before us. Consequently the Tribunal, in our view, committed an error in relying upon the provisions contained in section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act to give the benefit of exemption in respect of the sale of salt to the sale value of gunnies also. 11.. For all the reasons stated above, in our view the Tribunal committed an error in setting aside the assessment and levy of tax on sale value of gunny bags in respect of the assessees. Consequently the tax cases are allowed, the order of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the orders of the assessing officer as confirmed by the first appellate authority shall stand restored. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 343 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... in form No. VII-L dated August 20, 1991 in connection with case No. RN-269 of 1991 as well as the orders of assessments, the notice in form No. VI and the notice in form No. VII-L in the other three cases, being case Nos. RN-270 of 1991, RN-271 of 1991 and RN-272 of 1991 are to be set aside and that liberty should be given to the Commercial Tax Officer to make fresh assessment for the period of four quarters ending on Chaitra 1389 B.S. and the subsequent three years in respect of Messrs. Burdwan Mistanna Bhandar, in accordance with law, on serving fresh notices in form No. VI on the applicants. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL In view of the majority decision, the following order is passed The applications are dismissed. No cost is allowed in the circumstances. The interim order passed on October 8, 1991, is hereby vacated. Let the majority decision and this order govern all the four cases, viz., RN-269 of 1991, RN-270 of 1991, RN-271 of 1991 and RN-272 of 1991. Applications dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 342 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssed as per the provisions of section 55 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. With regard to question No. (2), we hold that the Tribunal was right in law to extend the benefit of remission of interest on the postponed dues but at the same time the relevant date would be March 31, 1978 and not March 16, 1978. In view of our answer to question No. (1), question No. (3) is required to be answered in the affirmative to the extent that recovery of sales tax dues against the opponent and interest thereon is not required to be postponed from the date of filing of the return but it is required to be postponed from March 31, 1978. In other words, the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978 had granted postponement of recovery of sales tax dues from March 31, 1978 and did not grant postponement of sales tax dues from the date of filing of the returns by the assessee nor from March 16, 1978. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1992 (9) TMI 341 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence). Hence, this argument fails. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider the further question as to what is the effect of subsequent amendment and notifications issued and their impact on the orders passed in these cases. Before parting with the case, we must refer to one more fact. After arguments were almost concluded, the learned counsel for the appellants filed a note enumerating the legal contentions. Some of the contentions mentioned therein are neither found in the memorandum of appeal nor were they argued before us. To the extent the points were argued and pressed upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, we have dealt with them supra. We find no illegality in the impugned orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revising the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. In the result, all the special appeals are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee in each case is fixed at Rs. 200. Appeals dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 340 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be considered and decided. On the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for the finding that the assessee in the present case was not guilty of wilful non-disclosure of particular turnover in question, we could not come to the conclusion that the findings are either unwarranted or unreasonable or vitiated by any error of law or perversity of approach. The fact that the said turnover was disclosed in the return for the month of March and the tax due was remitted thereon even before the finalisation of the assessment, was not disputed and that being real position the question of levy of penalty under section 12(3) does not arise at all and the Tribunal was right in setting aside the penalty in the present case, on the peculiar facts and circumstances specifically found. Consequently, we see no error of law warranting our interference in this revision. The revision therefore fails and shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 339 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd receipt of the balance withheld by the customers to the satisfaction of the assessing authority who shall objectively consider the issue and pass orders giving sufficient reasons for his conclusions, the same shall be considered and treated as only contracts for supply of materials and therefore are liable to sales tax. 14.. The order of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the 135 items of work shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the assessing authority for consideration afresh in the light of the materials that may be produced by the assessees and determination in accordance with our directions and declaration of law made in this order. In other respects, viz., relating to 265 items out of 400 agreed to and executed already, the revision shall stand dismissed. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the revision shall stand allowed partly and is remitted and there shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 338 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ace of business of the appellants and the way in which the D7 records were handed over by the appellants to the inspecting authorities clearly prove that the transactions relate to the appellants only. Being a goldsmith statutorily he has to maintain G.S. 13 register in the normal course of his business. Since it is proved that the goldsmith is doing labour work for the appellants it is obvious that the ornaments have been manufactured for labour only. Under these circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the goldsmith is doing labour work only for the appellants and sister concern and not to outsiders and the goods manufactured relate to the appellants only. 5.. Since thus the nexus between the abovesaid goldsmith and the assessee has been established, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no merit. We do not see any error of law in the order of the Tribunal and hence the revision petitions are not admitted, but dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 337 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are reported in the same volume of Sales Tax Cases. However, no note of the judgment in the case of Vasuki Carborundum Works 1979 43 STC 294 (Guj) was taken by the Assistant Commissioner while deciding the appeal. 21.. As stated above when the questions referred to us were coming within the subject-matter of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal should have entertained those points and should not have held that they cannot be entertained in the appeal. 22.. In view of this we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal on both the questions referred to us is not correct and our answers to those two questions are therefore, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (9) TMI 336 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that item, but knowing fully well that it does not, states that it is covered.....What is required plainly under section 10(b) is knowledge that the item is not covered by the certificate and the representation that it is covered by the certificate. Of course the representation is implied in the issue of C forms to the out-of-State seller. It can be safely inferred in the present case that the petitioner did have the knowledge that the generators are not covered by its certificate of registration since the certificate only uses the expression machineries connected with flour milling and not simply machinery. If at least the abovesaid rider connected with flour milling is not there, it can be said that the assessee bona fide thought that generators would come under the term machineries . 9.. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this tax revision case and hence it is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 335 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal but having denied it in a case where such an order is passed by the first appellate authority. In fact order passed under section 22 of the Act by the first appellate authority is by way of review or is in the nature of rectification of mistake and therefore, it is an order passed in appeal. It is also significant to note that what the appellate authority has done while passing the order under section 22 of the Act, is nothing but rectification of a mistake in its appellate order and, therefore, the rectification order is nothing but an order passed in the appeal itself. With respect I agree with the earlier decision of this Court given in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. State Electricity Board 1983 UPTC 1164 and hold that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining and disposing of the departmental appeals. No other point was argued or pressed by either side. The result is that these revisions have no force and are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 334 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... supply of the ballast. One is regarding collection of the ballast at the railway station and loading of the ballast into railway wagon and unloading on both sides of the track, depending upon the requirement. The second stage is lifting of the ballast and dumping and spreading on both sides of the track in between two telegraph poles depending on the requirement. If this is the only requirement under the contract, it involves spreading and consolidating the ballast and stacking the ballast in such a manner so as to enable easy measurement of the quantity of ballast supplied. In that view of the matter the ratio of the decision in the case in 1981 48 STC 496 (H.Y. Jadhav v. State of Karnataka) would be clearly applicable to the instant case. In view of the above, we hold that the transaction between the assessee and the railway is a contract of supply of ballast and not a works contract. As such these petitions have to fail, and are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 333 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctively is only marginal and the Tribunal rightly granted the benefit to the assessee in respect of those additions. 4. It is relevant to mention that the Revenue had not filed any enhancement petitions within the prescribed time before the Tribunal against the finding of the appellate authority relating to the grant of exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The enhancement petitions were filed much later and for cogent reasons given by the Tribunal, the same were not entertained. Even otherwise, the enhancement petitions, in view of the law laid down by this Court in T.C. No. 1261 of 1981 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.) dated 7th December, 1982, were bound to fail. 5.. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court in T.C. No. 1261 of 1981 dated 7th of December, 1982, these revision petitions have no merit. They fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 332 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... period exceeding one year from the dates of seizure of such books of account, documents and gate pass book, the seized books of account, documents and gate pass book be returned by the respondents to the applicant. 26.. The sales tax authorities may proceed with the notice dated June 2, 1990 under section 14(1) of the Act of 1941 and the notices dated May 24, 1990 and July 2, 1990 in form VII-M. 27.. The sum of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the applicant, in pursuance of the interim order of this Tribunal dated June 18, 1990 in Case No. RN-279 of 1990, as security for release of the goods seized on May 4, 1990 as well as the sum of Rs. 10,000 deposited by the applicant as security for release of the goods seized on June 25, 1990, in pursuance of the interim order dated July 27, 1990 in Case No. RN-341 of 1990 will abide by the result of the penalty proceedings already initiated. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 331 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax, if any, due from Shri Nandamoori Venkata Rayudu of Rajahmundry. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice has been issued to him without affording any opportunity to him and that he is not aware whether any security has been offered by his father and, if so, what its terms and conditions are. Prima facie, it appears to us that the impugned demand notice has been issued to the petitioner without providing reasonable opportunity to him. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is quashed. This, however, does not preclude the respondents from passing appropriate orders for the recovery of the amount in question after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. If any such notice is given, it is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation and satisfy the authorities how he is not liable to pay the amount in question. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 330 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... major interest. The assessee had different units. Fuel and lubricants were transferred from one unit to another and adjustment entries were made in the accounts regarding them as sales. The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court held that there was no sale within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The learned Judges held that all the units having been owned by the assessee, there was no change of ownership in the goods transferred from one unit to another. The learned Judges also held that merely because for accounting purpose, the transactions were treated as sales, they would not amount to sales in the eye of law. These judgments fully support the view taken by us. We are in respectful agreement with the observations made in these judgments. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the orders of the lower authorities, is set aside and the tax revision cases are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 329 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the basis of which it could have been urged that prospective effect was required to be given to determination order. On the contrary it appears very clear to us that the product in question was sold as a hair-oil by the company and that, there was no justifiable reason for accepting that the orders of determination should have the prospective effect only. Moreover, it requires to be pointed out as noticed by the Tribunal, that, even it was not urged at the time of determination proceedings that the orders of determination should be given the prospective effect only. We are therefore, of the opinion, that the Tribunal was justified in not exercising its jurisdiction to give prospective effect to the determination order. We, therefore answer and reply this question also in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We therefore answer and reply the abovesaid questions as indicated by us, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (9) TMI 328 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rder of the Commissioner dated January 8, 1986 that is assailed in this special appeal. On a perusal of the order under appeal, we are convinced that the order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality. There was no adequate justification for the Deputy Commissioner to interfere in revision in the absence of any material and accept the plea that the amount of Rs. 5,79,042.40 represents receipts from the works contracts. For interference with the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner should find illegality or impropriety in the order proposed to be revised. In the absence of any such illegality or impropriety, in exercise of revisional power the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to substitute his judgment for the judgment of the Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the special appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 327 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stion whether the mineral mixture should be taxed as poultry feed under entry 80 to the First Schedule of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act or as general goods and held that the Tribunal was right in holding that it should be taxed as poultry feed under entry 80 of the First Schedule to the Act. We may observe here that the Bench made it clear that should it be found in any case that the mineral mixture could be put to any use other than mixing with poultry feed, it would be open to the assessing authority to take a different view. As noticed above, the authorities have not recorded any finding that the mineral mixture is being used for any purpose other than poultry feed. In view of this position, we are not persuaded to take a different view of the matter. The order of the Tribunal holding that poultry feed comes within the entry 80 of the First Schedule to the Act, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. Tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 326 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... this regard. 74.. In view of the reasons given above, I am inclined to hold that Boroline is a commodity notified under Notification No. 1658 F.T. dated August 1, 1956, issued under section 25 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated May 2, 1988, of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal. 75.. In the premises, the application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. ORDER In view of the judgment of the majority, the revisional judgment and order dated May 2, 1988, passed by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal, respondent No. 1, in respect of assessment for the period of 12 months ending Chaitra, 1386 B.S., is quashed. The appellate order dated October 16, 1985, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes relating to the assessment for the aforesaid period is restored and confirmed. Interim order, if any, is vacated. No order is made for costs. Application allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 325 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... question are necessarily inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Central Act. As held by the Supreme Court it is wholly immaterial whether there was any contractual obligation on the part of the seller to move the goods from one State to another. The decisive factor is the movement of goods from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal pursuant to and as an incident of the contract for sale. 11.. Accordingly, we answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Keeping in view the discussions made above, the answers to questions Nos. (2) and (3) are inconsequential and accordingly, no opinion is being recorded in respect of those questions. Here italicised. We also award cost of Rs. 750 in each case, to be payable by the assessee within three months from today. 12.. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. S.K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
