Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1957 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 461 to 467 of 467 Records

• 1957 (1) TMI 23
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of treating materials supplied in construction contracts as "sale of goods."
  2. Legislative competence of the Provincial and State Legislatures under the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of India.
  3. Validity of the assessment orders and the rules prescribed for calculating the sale price of materials in construction contracts.
  4. Delegation of legislative power to the State Government.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of Treating Materials Supplied in Construction Contracts as "Sale of Goods":
  The petitioner, a builder and contractor, argued that the materials supplied in the execution of construction contracts should not be considered as "sale of goods" under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Commercial Tax Officer had assessed the petitioner to tax on materials supplied in various construction contracts, treating them as sales. The court examined whether these transactions could be considered sales under the existing law. It was concluded that in a building contract, the property in the materials passes to the owner by accession when affixed to the building, not by sale. Thus, such supply does not constitute a sale of goods.
  
  2. Legislative Competence of the Provincial and State Legislatures:
  The court analyzed the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, and the State Legislature under the Constitution of India. Both legislations allowed taxation on the sale of goods but did not grant exclusive rights to legislate on the sale of goods, which is a concurrent subject. The court held that the Provincial or State Legislature could not declare a transaction as a sale of goods if it was not so under the Sale of Goods Act, without obtaining the requisite assent under section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, or Article 254 of the Constitution.
  
  3. Validity of the Assessment Orders and the Rules Prescribed for Calculating the Sale Price:
  The court scrutinized the method prescribed by the Act and the rules for calculating the sale price of materials in construction contracts. The rule required the dealer to produce evidence showing the cost of materials and labor, and in its absence, used an arbitrary formula. The court found this method to be arbitrary and not mathematically accurate, leading to the inclusion of consideration for work and labor in the sale price, which was beyond the Legislature's competence. Consequently, the provisions of the Act and the rules were declared ultra vires and void.
  
  4. Delegation of Legislative Power to the State Government:
  The court also addressed the issue of delegation of legislative power to the State Government. It was argued that the State Legislature had no power to delegate the function of laying down the principle of calculation to the State Government. Given the finding that the rule itself was arbitrary and ultra vires, the court did not delve deeply into this issue but implied that such delegation was improper.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court held that the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, treating materials supplied in construction contracts as sales of goods, were ultra vires and void. The assessment orders dated 11th May 1954 and 24th November 1954, based on these provisions, were quashed. The rule prescribed for calculating the sale price was also declared ultra vires. A writ of certiorari was issued quashing the assessment orders and the certificate filed. The respondents were directed to reassess the petitioner for the relevant years in accordance with the law. A certificate was granted under Article 132 of the Constitution for the respondents to appeal to the Supreme Court.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 22
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the assessment of tax under section 10(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944.
  2. Legality of the imposition of penalty under section 10(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944.
  3. Whether the assessment of tax for the period from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1947, is barred by limitation under the proviso to section 10(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944.
  4. Legality and validity of the assessment of tax under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of the Assessment of Tax under Section 10(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944:
  The court examined whether the assessment of tax upon the petitioner under section 10(5) was legal. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have been made upon the firm located at Jamui, not upon the firm at Barh. The court found that the Hindu joint family owned both businesses, and thus, the dealer carrying on both businesses was the same. The court held that the assessment under section 10(5) was validly made upon the petitioner, as the Hindu joint family was the dealer carrying on both businesses within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.
  
  2. Legality of the Imposition of Penalty under Section 10(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944:
  The court considered whether the imposition of the penalty was legal. The petitioner contended that the business at Barh was an extension of the Jamui business and should not be treated separately for registration purposes. The court found that the Hindu joint family had not applied for registration of the Barh business as required by rule 6 of the Bihar Commercial Taxes Manual. Consequently, the provisions of section 10(5) were applicable, and the imposition of the penalty was deemed legal.
  
  3. Whether the Assessment of Tax for the Period from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1947, is Barred by Limitation under the Proviso to Section 10(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944:
  The court evaluated whether the assessment was barred by limitation. Section 10(6) stipulates that no order assessing the amount of tax due from a dealer shall be passed later than 24 months from the expiry of the period. The assessment was made on 21st June, 1948, for the period from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1947. The court concluded that the assessment was made within the prescribed period and was not barred by limitation.
  
  4. Legality and Validity of the Assessment of Tax under Section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947:
  The court addressed the assessment under section 13(5) of the 1947 Act. The appellate court clarified that the assessment up to June 1947 was under the 1944 Act, and the subsequent period was under the 1947 Act. The court found no prejudice caused by this, as the assessment for the period up to June 1947 could be made under the 1944 Act, as provided in section 32 of the 1947 Act. Therefore, the assessment under section 13(5) was deemed legal and valid.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court answered all the questions against the petitioner and in favor of the Sales Tax Department. The assessment of tax and the imposition of penalties were found to be legal and valid. The assessment was not barred by limitation, and the assessment under section 13(5) of the 1947 Act was also upheld. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the references, with a hearing fee of Rs. 100 in each case.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 21
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legislative Authority to Tax Purchases
  2. Validity of Proviso (b) to Clause (ii) under Rule I of Sub-section (3) of Section 6
  3. Definition and Scope of "Turnover" and "Taxable Turnover"
  4. Competence of Sales Tax Authorities to Levy Tax
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legislative Authority to Tax Purchases
  The primary issue was whether the Legislature had the power to impose a tax on the turnover of purchases made by the dealer. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court in V.M. Syed Mohamed & Co. v. The State of Madras, held that the Legislature had the authority to levy such a tax under item 48 of List II of Schedule VII to the Government of India Act, 1935. This item authorizes "taxes on the sale of goods and on advertisements." The Tribunal concluded that the proviso in question, although inartistically inserted, was intra vires and should be regarded as an addition to the charging section 5 of the Act.
  
  2. Validity of Proviso (b) to Clause (ii) under Rule I of Sub-section (3) of Section 6
  The assessee contended that the proviso was ultra vires as it was not properly integrated into the charging section of the Act. However, the Tribunal and the High Court disagreed, stating that the Legislature's power to tax purchasers or purchasing dealers was adequately exercised. The High Court emphasized that the Legislature had the authority to define "taxable turnover" in a manner that included the price paid for goods despatched outside the Province of Bombay, even if it altered the traditional understanding of "turnover."
  
  3. Definition and Scope of "Turnover" and "Taxable Turnover"
  The High Court examined the definitions provided in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. The term "turnover" was defined as "the aggregate of the amounts of sale prices received and receivable by a dealer." The charging section, section 5, rendered every dealer liable to pay tax on his turnover in respect of sales or supplies of goods. However, section 6(3) introduced the concept of "taxable turnover," which included amounts equivalent to the purchase price of goods despatched outside the Province. The Court held that this artificial definition was within the Legislature's competence to enact.
  
  4. Competence of Sales Tax Authorities to Levy Tax
  The Sales Tax Officer included the purchase price of goods despatched to Madras in the taxable turnover and levied a tax. This was upheld by the Assistant Collector, the Collector, and the Sales Tax Tribunal. The High Court confirmed that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction as the proviso (b) to rule I(ii) under sub-section (3) of section 6 was valid. The Court noted that the Legislature had not altered the incidence of taxation but had merely prescribed a method for ascertaining the taxable turnover for goods despatched outside the State.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court reframed the question to focus on the legality of the levy of sales tax under the proviso in question. The Court answered in the affirmative, validating the levy of sales tax on Rs. 30,712-12-6 paid by the assessees for the purchase of goods despatched to Madras. The assessees were ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the State. The companion reference, raising the identical question, was also answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 20
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the respondent-company is a "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and/or section 2(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.
  2. Whether the business activities of the respondent-company constitute a sale or supply or purchase of goods under the aforementioned Acts.
  3. Whether the respondent-company is liable to pay tax and register under the aforementioned Acts.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Definition of "Dealer"
  The primary issue was whether the respondent-company (the assessees) qualifies as a "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and section 2(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The definition of a "dealer" under section 2(6) of the 1953 Act includes any person who carries on the business of selling or buying goods in the State of Bombay, whether for commission, remuneration, or otherwise.
  
  The Sales Tax Tribunal found that the assessees were acting merely as agents for their principals (advertisers) when they procured blocks from block-makers for advertising purposes. The Tribunal observed that the commission received from block-makers was in the nature of brokerage, and the assessees did not have dominion over the blocks as a purchaser would. Therefore, the assessees were not considered dealers.
  
  The learned Advocate-General argued that the Tribunal erred in its decision, asserting that the assessees were indeed purchasers of the blocks and, even if they acted as agents, they should be regarded as commission agents and thus dealers under the Act.
  
  Issue 2: Business Activities and Sale or Supply of Goods
  The Advocate-General presented four documents to support the contention that the assessees were purchasers of blocks:
  - Exhibit A: A form of contract between the advertiser and the assessees, authorizing the assessees to secure advertisement space and stating that the estimates did not cover production charges like type-setting, art-work, and blocks.
  - Exhibit B: An order from the assessees to a newspaper for advertisement on behalf of an advertiser.
  - Exhibit C: An order form from the assessees to an engraver for preparing blocks, mentioning the advertiser's name.
  - Exhibit D: A bill from the assessees to the advertiser, including sales tax on materials charged by block-makers.
  
  The Court found that these documents did not conclusively prove that the assessees were purchasers of the blocks. The documents were consistent with the assessees acting as agents for the advertisers. The assessees' averments that they acted as agents were not challenged by the Sales Tax Department, and the documentary evidence did not contradict this claim.
  
  Issue 3: Liability to Pay Tax and Registration
  The Advocate-General further contended that even if the assessees were agents, they should be considered commission agents buying goods and thus liable as dealers. However, the Court noted that this argument was not raised before the lower authorities. The assessees claimed they received commission from block-makers for rendering technical services, not for buying goods on behalf of advertisers. This claim was not denied by the Collector.
  
  The Court concluded that the assessees acted in a dual capacity: as agents for advertisers and as service providers for block-makers. Since the assessees were not buying goods as commission agents, they could not be considered dealers under the Act.
  
  Conclusion
  The Court held that the assessees were not dealers within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, or section 2(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, for the periods between 1st April, 1951, and 31st October, 1952, and between 1st November, 1952, and 31st March, 1954. The reference was answered in the negative, and the Collector of Sales Tax was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing. The Court's opinion was based solely on the admitted facts and the four documents presented, without considering any new evidence.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 19
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the petition is within time.
  2. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the petition.
  3. Whether the sales and adjustments are liable to be set aside.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Whether the petition is within time.
  The objection regarding limitation was not seriously pressed. In L. M. No. 95 of 1954, the official liquidator rejected Rikab Das Jain's application under section 231 on 14th September 1954, and the petition was presented on 29th November 1954. Rule 157 provides a thirty-day limitation for a petition to question an act or decision of the official liquidator. However, section 227 of the Companies Act does not necessitate an application to declare a disposition void, nor does it specify who may make such an application. The right to move the court accrues as long as the proceedings continue. C. O. No. 13 of 1956 was within time, as an identical application was refused by the official liquidator on 23rd January 1956, and the petition was presented on 20th February 1956. Thus, the objection regarding limitation loses its force.
  
  Issue 2: Whether the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the petition.
  The objection raised was that the company had filed appeals under the Letters Patent against the judgment of the High Court, making the petitioners contingent creditors. However, the mere fact that an appeal is pending does not change the status of the petitioners as creditors or disentitle them to safeguard their interest. The first two issues were decided in favor of the petitioners.
  
  Issue 3: Whether the sales and adjustments are liable to be set aside.
  The sales by auction on 14th December 1952 were completed after the petition for winding up was presented, thus allegedly void under section 227(2) of the Companies Act. However, the court found no force in this contention. There was a completed contract for sale when each item of property was knocked down to the highest bidder. The auction was conducted under a scheme sanctioned on 18th July 1952, and the properties were sold to the highest bidder with the limitation that the bid shall not fall below the reserve price. The auctioneers had complete authority to dispose of the property, and the contract was binding upon the company. The court observed that the transfers were bona fide and not meant to give fraudulent preference to any creditors, thus not void under section 227(2) or section 231 of the Companies Act.
  
  Regarding the adjustments, the directors decided to make a call of 23 percent in respect of partly paid shares, allowing shareholders to adjust call money against their dues. These adjustments were made after the winding-up petition was presented, thus void under section 227(2) of the Companies Act. The court found no fraudulent preference, but the adjustments were unauthorized payments disposing of the company's property wrongfully.
  
  In C.O. No. 14 of 1956, the petitioners claimed a secured debt based on a statement by the company's chairman excluding tea gardens from auction. The court held that this statement did not create a charge and was not binding on the property or its bona fide purchaser. Moreover, the particulars of the charge were not filed with the Registrar as required by section 109 of the Companies Act, rendering the charge void and unenforceable.
  
  Conclusion:
  The petitions L.M. No. 95 of 1954 and C.O. No. 13 of 1956 were accepted to the extent that the adjustments mentioned were declared void and ineffective. C.O. No. 14 of 1956 was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in all three petitions.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 18
  
  Issues:
  - Validity of an arbitration award and decree in a winding-up scenario under the Indian Companies Act of 1913.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment by Justice Falshaw of the High Court of Punjab pertains to an appeal against an order of the District Judge regarding the validity of an arbitration award and decree in a winding-up context. The case involved the Bombay Thread Mills Company Limited, which went into voluntary liquidation in October 1952. Subsequently, a petition for compulsory winding up was filed and granted in December 1953. Prior to the liquidation, the company had entered into a partnership agreement with Durga Das Nayyar, forming the B.T.M. Tube Reeling Works partnership. An arbitration agreement was made between Nayyar and the managing director, R.L. Khosla, to resolve disputes, resulting in an award issued after the company's liquidation. The official liquidator challenged the award under section 231 of the Indian Companies Act of 1913.
  
  The District Judge found that the award and decree contravened section 227(2) of the Act by disposing of the company's property post-liquidation. The judgment highlighted that the award directed payments and established charges on the company's property, impacting the distribution of assets among creditors. Despite no evidence of fraud in the arbitration process, the court held that the award interfered with the company's winding-up process, preventing preferential treatment of creditors based on early knowledge or influence.
  
  Justice Falshaw affirmed the District Judge's decision, stating that the award's impact on the company's property after liquidation rendered it invalid. He rejected the argument to uphold parts of the award related to the partnership assets, emphasizing the need for equal distribution among creditors. The judgment concluded that the District Judge's direction, allowing Nayyar to prove preferential creditor status, was fair and appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs, endorsing the equitable treatment of all parties involved in the liquidation proceedings.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 17
  
  Issues:
  Prosecutions under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 for non-compliance with filing requirements and laying balance sheets and profit and loss accounts at general body meetings.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to four connected revisions arising from prosecutions under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The revision petitioners in each case were prosecuted for various violations, including not filing complete lists of members and summaries within the specified timeframe and not laying balance sheets and profit and loss accounts at general body meetings as required by the Act. The prosecutions were related to the Arcot Citizen Bank Ltd., where the accused individuals held positions as directors and supervising director.
  
  The accused persons attempted to justify their non-compliance by citing difficulties arising from civil and criminal proceedings related to embezzlement cases, which allegedly hindered the preparation of necessary documents. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected these pleas and convicted the accused, imposing fines as penalties. The revision cases were filed challenging these convictions.
  
  The judgment delves into the concept of mens rea in criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing that the Indian penal statutes specify the mental state required for proving an offense through terms like "knowingly", "willingly", "fraudulently", and "negligently". It highlights that circumstantial evidence can establish guilty knowledge, and negligence, when used in the sense of blameful inadvertence, can also constitute mens rea under certain conditions.
  
  The court, after considering the arguments and principles related to mens rea, concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven knowing and wilful non-compliance by the revision petitioners through circumstantial evidence. The judgment cites a Calcutta High Court case to emphasize that directors have a duty to ensure compliance with legal obligations, and failure to do so warrants penalties to protect shareholders and the public.
  
  Ultimately, the court confirmed the convictions, but reduced the fines and default sentences in light of extenuating circumstances presented by the defense counsel. The excess fines, if already collected, were ordered to be refunded.

  ---

1 ....2021222324