|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 454 Records
-
1959 (9) TMI 46 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lers and buyers into contact and establish privity of contract between them. Nowhere has the witness for the plaintiff stated that the sales of the goods brought by the ryots have been effected in their presence after inviting the purchasers and settling the bargain between the parties. On the contrary it would appear that the ryots simply keep the goods with the plaintiff and the plaintiff sells them whenever desired by the ryots. In these circumstances it has to be held that the plaintiff is entrusted with the custody of the goods and is clothed with authority by the ryots to sell them on their behalf. The plaintiff s claim therefore that he is not liable to sales tax fails for lack of proof. Second Appeal No. 532 of 1954 is therefore dismissed. As, however, the plaintiff proceeded on the basis of a Bench ruling of the Madras High Court and also succeeded in the first Court, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs in all the three Courts. Ordered accordingly.
-
1959 (9) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eedings would have been pointed out as we have done above. In Sheonarayan Matadin s case(1) as well as in all the other cases concerning section 11(5) the decisions turned upon the plain construction of the section itself and not upon the applicability or analogy of any other section as is here claimed. There was certainly no reference made in those cases to section 11-A of the Act. In the present case the argument is that by analogy the period of limitation in section 11-A should be read into section 10(3) read with section 11(4)(a). In view of what we have said above, we are of opinion that the principle of the Full Bench case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. This was the only ground upon which the notices in the instant case were challenged. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed. Since reported as Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur v. Firm Ramkrishna Ramnath 1960 11 S.T.C. 807. (1) 1956 7 S.T.C. 623.
-
1959 (9) TMI 44 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gave before the Sales Tax Officer. This may probably be the reason why it did not think it proper to reject the explanation given by the assessee in that case. But in the present case the two different explanations given by the assessee at two different times have been noticed by the Board of Revenue, and, in view of the same it was perfectly entitled to come to a conclusion different from that to which it had arrived in the previous case referred to above. The question whether the booklet and the slips that were recovered on surprise inspection belonged to the assessee or to some other person is purely a question of fact, and nothing has been placed before us to interfere with the findings of the Courts below on that question of fact. In my opinion, therefore, the question referred to must be answered against the assessee, who must pay the costs of the reference. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250 for all these cases. RAMASWAMI, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1959 (9) TMI 43 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... State and consumed in States other than the State of first destination, only one ban is attracted, namely, the ban imposed by Article 286(2), and not the ban imposed by the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a), and, therefore, sales falling under this category have only one hurdle to surmount, namely, the hurdle imposed by Article 286(2), and that hurdle is surmounted by the President s Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, and by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, for the period from the 26th January, 1950, to the 6th September, 1955. The assessment periods with which we are concerned in this case fall within these two crucial dates and in view of the principle laid down in Mahadeo Ram Bali Ram v. State of Bihar(2), we hold that the second question referred by the Board of Revenue to this Court must also be answered against the assessee and in favour of the State of Bihar. The assessee must pay the cost of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1959 (9) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee has been properly assessed under rule 16(2). The revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. T.R.C. No. 70 of 1957.-This revision petition relates to the assessment to sales tax for the year 1952-53. The only question raised in this case is whether a tanner, who purchased untanned hides and skins but did not tan the same in his own factory, would be liable to be taxed. This point is covered by our decision in T.R.C. No. 64 of 1956. The conclusion that the turnover in respect of such purchase is assessable is correct. This revision petition fails and is dismissed. T.R.C. No. 71 of 1957.-This revision petition relates to the assessment for the year 1954-55. The questions raised in this case are identical with those raised in T.R.C. No. 226 of 1956. In view of our decision in that case, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Petitions dismissed. Since reported as Sri Jey Cherish and Co., Ltd. v. The State of Madras 1960 11 S.T.C. 353.
-
1959 (9) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... paid the tax within the meaning of rule 16(3). This contention again was not put forward before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee recognised as a factual position that on the sales of the tanned hides and skins the assessee was not subjected to any tax liability. The word tannery as used in rule 16(3) has to be considered consistently with the scheme of the rules. The tax is to be paid by a person that is a tanner. It is not necessary for us to consider in this case, whether a person who gets hides and skins tanned elsewhere should be deemed to be the owner of a tannery within the scope of rule 16(3). In the circumstances of the case, as we said, the fact that the assessee was proved to have got the untanned hides and skins tanned in tanneries other than his own made no real difference to the tax liability, to which he was subjected under rule 16(2) as a registered tanner. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut that the incidence of taxation ultimately fell on the consumer the learned judge recorded. As the seller is merely to pass on the tax to the consumer, he is, in fact, constituted collector of the tax on behalf of the State. The learned judge was only explaining the reality of the situation with reference to the economic incidence of the tax. We are now concerned with the question whether what was so passed on could ever be part of the price the consumer has to pay and which could be correlated to the bargain or transaction of sale itself. That aspect we feel was considered in full in Sundararajan s case 1956 7 S.T.C. 105., and we are unable to hold that the view taken was erroneous or that it requires reconsideration. We are bound to follow the authority of the earlier decision, and we hold that the Tribunal rightly included this item also in the assessable turnover of the assessee. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for spinning. Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the amended rule expressly provided for the levy of the tax on the dealer who was the last purchaser, and there was no such express provision in rule 4-A(iv) as it stood in the relevant period. That in no way really affected the validity of the old rule 4-A(iv), because, as we said, it prescribed the single point which could be ascertained with precision for the levy of sales tax on the sale (or purchase) of cotton in the series of such transactions in relation to that cotton. We hold that rule 4-A(iv) as it stood in the relevant period was intra vires and that it was not in conflict with any of the provisions of section 5(ii) of the Act. All the contentions of the petitioner fail. The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was liable to be taxed on the purchase turnover we have mentioned above, Rs. 34,61,213-1-9. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncerned party, it should be held that both the parties intended to effect actual delivery at the place designated by the party having the option. In the present case, there was such an option given to the buyers to designate the place of actual delivery. The buyers exercised the option and required their sellers to send the goods to the various places. It is true that the assessees, after loading the goods in railway wagons, took the relevant receipts in the names of the buyers, namely, the United Coffee Supply Co., Ltd., and thereby gave constructive delivery of the goods to the buyers, but actual delivery was all along intended to be given and was given only at the places designated by the buyers. It follows that the deliveries in the present case were intended to be effected outside the State of Madras, and were so effected. The petitioners would be entitled to the exemption claimed. The revision petitions are allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petitions allowed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 37 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sales are exempt from sales tax. The learned Superintendent erred in imposing sales tax on such sales. Even in the grounds of appeal the assessee did not claim that they were acting as an agent for the foreign seller with regard to the transaction of supply of goods to the Damodar Valley Corporation and of course there is no finding on this point by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax or of the Board of Revenue. We do not, therefore, consider that it is open to the assessee to raise this question of agency for the first time in the hearing of this reference. It is manifest, therefore, that the assessee has been validly taxed also with regard to the goods delivered to the Damodar Valley Corporation in Bihar and the second question of law referred to the High Court by the Board of Revenue must accordingly be answered against the assessee and in favour of the State of Bihar. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1959 (9) TMI 36 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al to examine whether in such circumstances the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act would come to the help of the petitioner. Nor should it be understood that we accept as correct the petitioner s statement that he received the copy of the order of the Collector of Sales Tax only on the 4th October, 1957. It is primarily the look-out of the petitioner to satisfy the Sales Tax Tribunal about the correctness of the facts, on which his right to appeal to the Tribunal will depend. Whatever may be the ultimate order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner has always a further remedy by way of asking that authority to refer to the High Court any question of law that may arise out of its order, under subsection (1) of section 24 of the Act. Under these circumstances we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This application is dismissed, but there will be no order for costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the order of the subordinate authority in the order of the appellate authority, we are of the view that the provisions of the Act do not warrant the existence of any power in the Deputy Commissioner to interfere under section 12 of the Act with an order of the Commercial Tax Officer passed under section II, when such an order has itself been superseded by the order of the Appellate Tribunal. In the present case, the assessment order went a stage further. There was the final disposal by the High Court under section 12-B of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise an assessment which had been the subject-matter of a final order of the High Court, i.e., an assessment to which the statutory finality attached itself only under the order of the High Court. The view taken by the Tribunal that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was beyond his jurisdiction is correct. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... purchases of the goods by the respondents were completed on the dates of exhibits P-4 to P-6 and nothing prevented them from maintaining an account of the value of the goods after obtaining delivery except dilatory practices which they set up for their own convenience. It is clear that they are guilty of a breach of rule 45(l) and are liable to punishment under rule 64. I find them guilty under rule 64 read with rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. On the question of the sentence, there is considerable force in the plea of Sri T. Bali Reddy on their behalf that they were misled by no objection having been previously taken to the practice which they (1) 23 Q.B.D. 168 at page 172. followed. The offence may be regarded as technical, inasmuch as no oblique motive has been alleged by the prosecution. The respondents are each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 with simple imprisonment for one week in default. Time for payment of fine one month. Appeal allowed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the decision of the inferior tribunal was against law and a superior court which had seisin of the case as a court of revision at the time when the retrospective legislation was enacted and which had the jurisdiction to interfere in case where an error of law was committed could give effect to that law. In the instant case the effect of section 2 of Act VII of 1956 is that assessments were lawful on the date on which they were made. It follows that there was an error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal when it held that the disputed turnover should not be taken into account. Being an error of law, this Court would have jurisdiction to rectify it under section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The order of the Appellate Tribunal granting exemption in respect of the turnovers aforesaid is set aside, and they will be directed to be included in the assessable turnover. The revision petitions are allowed. But there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emand being limited to the issue we have mentioned above, the liability of the second item with the turnover of Rs. 3,02,639-3-0 to sales tax. It is open to the Tribunal to allow the assessee an opportunity to supplement the evidence already on record. Even if such further evidence is not offered, then with reference to the facts already on record the Tribunal will consider whether even a portion of the turnover is of sales of articles delivered for consumption outside the State of Madras, and if so, whether Madras State could not tax such sales, despite the President s Sales Tax Continuance Order. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal will stand confirmed. In fact, those findings were not challenged before us. The order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent indicated above. The Tribunal will hear the appeal afresh on the lines indicated above and dispose of it in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in the proceedings before us. Case remanded.
-
1959 (9) TMI 31 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... purely one of accounting and since the petitioners never produced their account books before the Sales Tax Authorities nor furnished any return of their sales, it is obvious that no such question was raised by the petitioners before the Superintendent of Sales Tax or before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax or before the Board of Revenue. As we have already said, the question raised by the petitioners for the first time in the High Court is a question of fact which was not raised before the Sales Tax Authorities and which was not investigated by them. It is impossible, therefore, for us to entertain this question for the first time in the High Court and determine it. For this reason also we hold that there is no merit in this writ application and the petitioners have not made out a case for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. For these reasons we hold that this application fails and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1959 (9) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nding of the Tribunal in regard to the extent of the lands owned by the petitioners and that of the lands proved to have been leased to them. The price of sugar-cane grown on those lands was excluded from the turnover of the petitioners held to be assessable. The remand is thus confined to the consideration of the question of the assessability of the sale price of the sugar-cane grown on the other two classes of lands, that is the lands which the petitioners failed to prove had been leased to them and the lands the produce of which the petitioners claim had been sold by the growers benami, that is, in the name of the petitioners. The Tribunal will give further opportunities both to the petitioners and to the State to let in further evidence to decide the questions at issue, mainly the question whether each of the petitioners was a dealer as defined by the Act. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will however be no order as to costs. Cases remanded.
-
1959 (9) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator and Power of Tribunal to make calls
-
1959 (9) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... he period for which the standard rent is to have effect covers not more than a month and a half the Simplex Company has not minded the entire liability of the Hindustan Company being determined at the rate of Rs. 35 per mensem between 14th of September, 1956, and the end of October, 1956. I, therefore, deduct Rs. 337-8-0 which according to this calculation have been paid in excess to the Simplex Company. The Hindustan Company shall be liable to pay to the Simplex Company a round sum of Rs. 17,100 on account of unpaid rent and electric charges up to 31st of October, 1956. The official liquidator shall treat the claim of the Simplex Company accruing after the date of the winding up, in priority, along with other creditors who are also entitled to priority. In view of what has been stated above, the official liquidator is directed to admit the claim of the Simplex Company to Rs. 17,100 and abide by the other directions contained in this order. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1959 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up – Settlement of list of contributories and application of assets ... ... ... ... ..... hem. The books of the company have not been kept properly. It has not been possible to rely upon the books of the company which are incomplete or on the returns sent to the Registrar for settling a correct list of contributories. Moreover, from the realisations there will be no surplus left after payment to the creditors for a return of the capital to the contributories, as only a dividend of 4 nP. in the rupee had been declared to the creditors and the further assets which could be realised will not yield even one more naya paisa in the rupee. Therefore prayer (a) is granted. Prayer (b) In the circumstances, excepting the statutory books, the rest of the useless books, records, and files, which are large in volume and cluttering in appreciable portion of the limited record room of the official liquidator and whose preservation serves no useful purpose, are directed to be sold and the proceeds credited to the company. The costs of this application will come out of the estate.
............
|
