|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 374 Records
-
1955 (9) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the petitioners imported tobacco from the State of Bombay in large quantities but stated that the tobacco, after its arrival in the petitioners' bidi factories, was cleaned, sieved and blended?
Held that:- The respondents will be restrained from enforcing the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and its provisions against the petitioners and from imposing a tax in respect of the transactions in question and in particular from imposing a tax on the purchase price of goods purchased on the declarations under rule 26 being goods specified in the registration certificate as intended for use as raw material in the manufacture of goods for sale by actual delivery in Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of consumption in that State but utilised for any other purpose under the provisions of section 4(6) of the Act.
-
1955 (9) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... set out any such plea in his reply to the demand notice of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer or even in his plaint and the Subordinate Judge observes It is not denied that some of the contracts were executed in Fort Cochin . The second point taken was that the plaintiff was a non-resident foreigner who had no place of business in the Madras State and that he was not therefore liable to sales tax. If for executing the contracts or delivering the goods he came into Fort Cochin, he may not be regarded as a non-resident foreigner. But the question of his residence is really immaterial. We have to see whether he is a dealer within the meaning of the Act and he is undoubtedly so, as he is a person who carried on the business of selling goods within the State of Madras. Explanation (2) to section 2 makes the agent (if any) also a dealer and is not intended to take the principal outside the scope of liability. Therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT
Whether that proviso to Article 286(2) also saves the transactions of sale or purchase covered by the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) from the ban imposed therein?
Held that:- The whole theory, therefore, of "inside sales" falls to the ground and the only thing which we are left with is that these transactions were inter-State transactions in which as a direct result of such sales the goods were actually delivered for the purpose of consumption in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) deter- mined the State of Uttar Pradesh to be the State in which the sales took place and which alone was entitled to tax these transactions, the State of Madhya Pradesh becoming an "outside" State for the purpose.
Apart from the ban imposed on the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto, these transactions were also in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were hit by the ban of Article 286(2). The President's order no doubt lifted that ban but was not competent to lift the ban under Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto with the result that in spite of that order the State of Madhya Pradesh was not in a position to impose a tax on these transactions during the post-Constitution period. The assessment of these transactions to tax for the post-Constitu- tion period, therefore, is invalid and cannot be sustained. Allow the petition, set aside the said order dated the 14th July, 1954, and the matter will go back to the Assessment Officer for re-assessment of the petitioners in accordance with law.
-
1955 (9) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
Levying and realising a tax questioned - Held that:- The Act imposes tax on subjects divisible in their nature but does not exclude in express terms subjects exempted by the Constitution. In such a situation the Act need not be declared wholly ultra vires and void, for it is feasible to separate taxes levied on authorised subjects from those levied on exempted subjects and to exclude the latter in the assessment of the tax. In these circumstances it is difficult to say that the scheme of taxing inter-State sales forms such an integral part of the entire scheme of taxation on sales or purchases of goods as to be inextricably inter-woven with it. There is no reason to presume that had the Bihar Legislature known that the provisions of the Act might be held bad in so far as they imposed or authorised the imposition of a tax on inter-State trade or commerce even though Parliament had not by law pro- vided otherwise it would, nevertheless, not have passed the rest of the Act.
The appeal is allowed and an order shall be issued directing that, until Parliament by law provides otherwise, the State of Bihar do forbear and abstain from imposing sales tax on out- of-State dealers in respect of sales or purchases that have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce even though the goods have been delivered as a direct result of such sales or purchases for consumption in Bihar. The State must pay the costs of the appellant in this Court and in the Court below.
-
1955 (9) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Memorandum and articles of association – Registration of, Articles of association and Effect of memorandum and articles
-
1955 (9) TMI 8 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
Associations and partnerships exceeding certain numbers – Prohibition of ... ... ... ... ..... case (supra) it is held by a majority that section 4 is a bar to the maintainability of such a suit. The Calcutta High Court has held in the case reported in Nibaran Chandra v. Lalit Mohan ILR 1938 2 Cal 368, that an association, the members of which exceed twenty, is an illegal one by reason of non-registration and that a suit at the instance of one of the members of such an association is not maintainable. Coming to our own High Court, there is a decision reported in Abdul Wahed Saheb v. Badrudin Khan Sahib 22 Mys. CCR 17, in which it is laid down that a suit to recover sums of money advanced by a member of an unregistered company against another member is not maintainable inasmuch as the company was not registered. I am of opinion that the finding of the learned Munsiff that the suit was maintainable in that court cannot be supported. In the result, the finding of the learned Munsiff on the former part of the first issue is set aside and this revision petition is allowed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... uction to be adopted of Section 167(8). This is particularly so in view of the fact that the introductory portion of the order itself proceeds upon the establishment to the satisfaction of the Collector, of collusion between the broker and the petitioner in the matter of this illegal export. Even apart from this, whether mens rea is an ingredient of section 167(8) or not, it would certainly be a material factor for determining the quantum of punishment. This was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. Hence in the absence of notice to petitioner the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction and not in conformity with the Sea Customs Act. On this short ground therefore that the petitioner was not given any notice to show cause, nor an opportunity to prove his innocence before the penalty was imposed, the order of the Collector of Customs imposing the fine is quashed, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner will have his cost of this writ petition.
-
1955 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, A.P. AT GUNTUR
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ereupon the said stock was put up for auction on 3rd November, 1953 for realization of the the amount of the penalty and duty. It is asserted by the respondent s learned Counsel that the amount realized completely satisfied the amount of duty and the penalty. 7.The question therefore is, whether these circumstances, the order of acquittal made by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bhimunipatnam merits interference. 8.As has been rightly pointed out by the Sub-Magistrate the act of removal is not per se an offence punishable under Section 9(b). What is made punishable under Section 9(b) is the evasion of payment of duty. The removal part of the stock is made punishable under Rule 144 with a penalty which may extend to Rs. 2,000/-. That penalty had been levied and actually collected in addition to duty. I am satisfied in the circumstances there is no manifest error in the order passed by the Sub-Magistrate which calls for interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
-
1955 (8) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ceptance of an offer, simply because before the completion of the formalities, another purchaser had appeared with a better offer. In the present case, however, the Appellants, on their own showing, never intended to purchase the property on the conditions on which it was actually offered for sale and in spite of the clear indication given of those conditions at the meeting of the 12th. They say that they made their offer on a different basis altogether. The Commissioner or the owners have therefore no obligation to them, contractual or otherwise, and no illegality or impropriety is involved in directing the Commissioner to disregard their offer and negotiate with a party who is willing to pay a better price, with liberty to the Appellants to compete with him, if they so desire. That is the direction which the learned Judge has given. For the reasons given above, this appeal is dismissed with costs and the order of the learned trial Judge is affirmed. S.C. Lahiri, J. I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se the liability of the agent or the principal the right of a landlord where forfeiture of a lease has been committed to exact the forfeiture or to treat the former tenant as still tenant and the like. To those cases the statement of Lord Blackburn in Scarf v. Jardine (1882) L.R. 7 A.C . 345 at p. 360, applies 'where a man has an option to chose one or other of two inconsistent things when once he has made his election it cannot be retracted.' The first defendant was undoubtedly prejudiced by the election but even if this feature were absent I would hold that there had been an election by proceedings against the tenant notwithstanding that the appellant was unable to obtain a judgment in it and that he cannot thereafter seek to treat the first defendant as in possession and recover mesne profits against him. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The Civil Revision Petition also is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
-
1955 (8) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re therefore not liable to be included in the assessments for those assessment years. As regards the assessment year 1948-49, the question does not seem to me to arise, because the whole of the commission amount included in the income of the relevant accounting year was earned in that very year and was not either wholly or in part accumulated or arrear commission of any previous year. As respects the last assessment year, the amount of ₹ 1,650 is referable only in part to commission which had been earned in a previous year, but what that part is no one has determined. In the result, the question referred should, in my opinion, be answered in the following way As respects assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45-"No." As respects the assessment year 1948-49, the question does not arise. As respects the assessment year 1949-50-"No", as to the part coming out of commission earned in previous years and lying to the credit of the assessee. Lahiri, J.-I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they should be allowed to withdraw the reference. There does not appear to be any provision in the Income-tax Act under which a party who has caused a reference to be made can be allowed to withdraw it after the Tribunal has made a reference to this Court. A reference made to this Court must be decided unless at least the party who had caused the reference to be made fails to appear and to take any interest in the matter. In the present case the assessees have appeared through an advocate and have brought it to our notice that the question has now been finally determined against the contention of the assessees by the highest Court of the country. In the circumstances the only order which we can possibly make is an order in accordance with our previous decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court. The answer to the question referred must therefore be in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax prays for his costs. He will have them from the assessee. Lahiri, J.-I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 48 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... due s to him from the father of the Plaintiff, while D. W 2 deposed that the debt referred to as be1ng payable to him was real. The scribe of the mortgage-bond, was examined on the side of the Defendants as D. W. 3 and he supported them. On these facts, the lower appellate Court decided that Exhibit B-l is binding upon the Plaintiff. In the course of its judgment, after discussing a portion of the evidence, it observed that the burden lay upon the Plaintiff to establish want of consideration. We are inclined to agree with the learned District Judge, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that the burden lay upon the Plaintiff to establish that the recitals in a mortgage-bond which was executed six years before the actual alienation and twenty years before the date when it was attacked were false, especially in the absence of their father from the witness-box. 14. We therefore , affirm the decision of the learned District judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.
-
1955 (8) TMI 47 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xcluded from liability for income-tax in Travancore except under certain circumstances. In the absence of a similar provision to the effect that losses incurred within British India or any other Indian State should not be taken into account in computing the income of an assessee under section 13 of the Act (section 10 of the Indian Act), there will be no justification in not deducting those losses when computing the income of the assessee. 14. We, therefore, hold that, in computing the income of the assessee, the sum of ₹ 79,275 representing loss incurred by the assessee in the erstwhile Cochin State and the former British India should be deducted from the profits made by the assessee in the erstwhile Travancore State. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee will get his costs of the reference including advocate's fee ₹ 100 (one hundred only), from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (8) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... led and the accused were examined. 11. As we hold that there has been proper committal of the accused in respect of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, we have the option of either to direct the learned Judge and jury to proceed with the trial in respect of the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or to quash the proceedings. As, however, evidence in respect of the charge under section 471 read with section 467 of the Indian Penal Code has already been led before the jury on a substantive charge we think it should be proper to exercise out powers under section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code and to direct that the proceedings from the stage of empanelling the jury before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, should be quashed and that the Sessions Court should proceed to try the three accused before a fresh jury for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Ordered accordingly.
-
1955 (8) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m a line of succession under the Hindu law. These notions of Hindu law have not in our opinion to be imported in interpreting the words "lineal descendant". The view that we are taking is further confirmed by the provision of the First Schedule to the Finance Act of 1955 dealing with the question of exemption. In the Finance Act of 1955, the words used are "lineally descended from any other living member of the family not entitled to claim partition." This would clearly show that lineal descent is possible from female members who may not be entitled to claim partition. Our answer, therefore, to the question put to us by the Division Bench is that a son or a grandson can be said to be a lineal descendant of his mother or grandmother respectively within the meaning of condition (b) of clause (i) of Part I (A) of Schedule I of the Indian Finance Act (No. 23 of 1951) which prescribes ₹ 7,200 as an exemption limit in the case of a Hindu undivided family.
-
1955 (8) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was immediate performance or within a reasonable time. 7. In our opinion, therefore, with respect to the learned Judge, he was in error when he looked upon this agreement as constituting a contract for purchase or sale of shares. In our opinion, at the date when it was entered into there was no such contract and that contract only came into existence at the end of 12 months when the performance was either immediate or within a reasonable time. As the plaintiff is suing the defendant in respect of that obligation his suit is hot rendered bad by reason of the provisions of the Bombay Act and the contract in our opinion is valid and enforceable. 8. The result is that the appeal succeeds and the decree passed by the learned Judge will be set aside. The suit will be remanded back for trial on the other issues. The respondent must pay the costs of the appeal. 9. Liberty to the' appellant's attorneys to withdraw the sum of ₹ 500 deposited in Court. 10. Appeal allowed.
-
1955 (8) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ficult, but I do not consider it impossible that it can be performed under the provisions of section 26(1) of the Income-tax Act. It appears to me to be desirable that the language of the section, as also that of the rules, should receive legislative attention. Apart from the instances of disharmony which I have noticed, the Legislature does not seem to have known very well what it would direct to be registered. Under section 26A(1) itself, what is to be registered is the firm. Under rule 2 of the rules, certain particulars are to be registered. Under paragraph 4(1) of the form, what is to be registered is the instrument of partnership. Such draftsmanship is obviously not the best. In accordance with the view which I have taken with respect to the true meaning of section 26A(1) and for the reasons I have given, the answer to the question referred to this Court must be in the negative. We would make no order for costs. LAHIRI, J. --I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (8) TMI 42 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s own method. But in doing so he must have reference to the accounts before him as section 13 does not contemplate the rejection of the accounts. Section 13 adds nothing to and takes nothing away from section 23(3)." We respectfully accept the said observations as laying down the correct law on the subject. If the Income-tax Officer intends to act under that proviso, he can adopt his own method but in doing so he must have reference to the accounts furnished by the assessee. But in this case as aforesaid the Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's accounts and determined the income under section 23(3). The order of the Tribunal, a gist of which we have given supra, gives valid and relevant reasons for determining the income under section 23(3). The finding arrived at by them is one of fact and there are no grounds for directing them to state a case. The applications fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocates' fee ₹ 100 in each. Applications dismissed.
-
1955 (8) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es no further, that contention will not have been properly disposed of. We can however protect the interest of the assessee only by qualifying our answer and indicating the precise point to which it is limited. What we do decide is only this, that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the service of the notice was not sufficient service within the meaning of section 63 of the Indian Income-tax Act, merely on the finding that the notice had been served upon a brother of the assessee who had no authority to receive it on the assessee's behalf, without considering the presumption which arose under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and without coming to any decision as to whether that presumption had been rebutted. The answer to the question referred will, therefore, be "No, in the absence of any consideration of the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and any finding that the said presumption had been rebutted." Lahiri, J.-I agree.
............
|
