|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 696 Records
-
1966 (12) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that he must supply the bricks according to the permit issued by the appropriate authorities. He says, therefore, that having submitted to that condition or arrangement with the authorities, the manufacturer or dealer cannot later on say that his volition is in any way being fettered or hampered by the terms of the licence. Such an argument, however, cannot be of much assistance in deciding whether the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in New India Sugar Mills case 1963 14 S.T.C. 316 A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1207. would be applicable to the matters before me or not. As I am of the opinion that the present cases are governed by the majority decision in New India Sugar Mills case 1963 14 S.T.C. 316 A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1207., I would allow these petitions and quash the assessment orders to the extent they relate to sales tax on such transactions as were entered into with permit holders of bricks. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1966 (12) TMI 58 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oned the export. The agreement filed by the assessee shows that the outside purchaser purchased certain quantity of hemp from the assessee. When the assessee sold the hemp to the outside buyer, it was a separate and distinct transaction. The assessee s sale of hemp to the outside buyer might have occasioned the export of hemp outside the Indian territory. But its purchases had not that effect. The purchases at best can be said to be made for the purposes of export, but they did not occasion the export. The agreement filed by the assessee has not been in any way connected with the purchases made by him. 6.. In this view of the matter, our conclusion is that the purchases made by the assessee were not exempt under section 50(1)(iii) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and that they were liable to purchase tax under section 7 of that Act. We answer the reference accordingly. The assessee shall pay costs of the reference. Hearing fee Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1966 (12) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of transporting agencies like shipping companies which make the payment for food and drink part of the fare Itself, with no option to the passenger to dissociate the cost of transport from the cost of food. But in the case of Railways such a distinction is made, and the cost of transport is charged separately, and the cost of food and refreshments is charged to the passengers only when they take the food and refreshments. But the principle thus stated shows that there is nothing unreasonable in integrating a well-organised catering activity with transport activity. From the above point of view, I am of the opinion that the transaction in question formed part of the business of the Railway during the relevant period. Therefore, even though at that time they could not be assessed to sales tax due to the absence of the profit motive, section 9 of Act 15 of 1964 will validate the levy. In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1966 (12) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... possible to say that such a person is not buying a chemical but in the case of the assessee who actually manufactures sodium silicate and calls itself Banaras Chemicals it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to say that it is not a chemical as used in the manufacture of soap by him. The two reasons given by the judge (Revisions) for holding that sodium silicate is not a chemical, (1) that it is only used as a filler in the manufacture of cheap soap, and (2) it is not a chemical compound, are both incorrect for the reason that (1) its use as a filler is one of its uses and not the only use to which it can be put and further that its main purpose is as a detergent, and (2) it is certainly a chemical compound as is borne out by the text-books referred to hereinabove. For the reasons given above we would answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of Rs. 100 of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1966 (12) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on has been filed. If that be so, the certificate against the petitioner cannot be cancelled. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue was, therefore, justified in restoring the certificate against the petitioner. It is not necessary for us to pass any opinion on the argument on behalf of the revenue that the transfer having been made after the filing of the certificate which has the effect of a decree, the liability of the petitioner under the certificate cannot in any way be affected by the subsequent transfer. In the result, the Rule is discharged not on the ground that the transfer was not accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer as stated by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, but on the ground that the transferor was not absolved from his liability by reason of the transfer. As the rule is being discharged on a ground not specifically taken by the revenue before any of the authorities below, there shall be no order for costs. CHAKRABARTY, J.-I agree. Rule discharged.
-
1966 (12) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... separately. In that case, the same Bench which decided the later case of Poulose Bros. v. State of Kerala(1), held that cashew-nut including its kernel means cashew-nut inclusive of its kernel, i.e., the whole or unshelled nut with the kernel inside. This view does not help the petitioner, because in the instant case the definition is shelled or unshelled . The word shelled has significance, and by way of contrast, the Legislature used the word unshelled to give greater emphasis to its including copra in the word coconut so as to make the meaning clear that not only is an unshelled coconut a coconut but also copra. If this is the meaning to be attached to the definition, and I have no doubt that it is, there is no escape from the conclusion that copra is exigible to tax at the last point of purchase. The petitioner being the last purchaser, the tax has been properly levied. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petitions dismissed.
-
1966 (12) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the goods were sold after they were imported into the State of Madras?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. We are of the view, having regard to the circumstances, that the case should be remanded to the High Court to determine the questions whether the agent of the non-resident supplier was the agent covered by the explanation to the definition of the word "dealer" in section 2(b), whether the property in the goods purchased by the assessee passed within the State of Madras, whether the sale was effected by a dealer resident within the State of Madras, and whether such sale took place after the goods were imported within the State of Madras.
-
1966 (12) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... gh Lindley L.J., observed that no damages without rectification can be obtained by a summons under section 35 of the Act of 1862 instead of by an action at law, the appellate court proceeded to assess the damages in view of the consent of the parties to treat it as an action at law. In our view also, whether those observations are obiter or not, they are entitled to great weight and even on a plain reading of section 38(1) and (2), no question of damages will arise without rectification of the register and since no rectification can be ordered, inasmuch as the shares have already been split in 1946, the respondent M. R. Patny s legal representatives cannot be registered as holders of the shares. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other question, namely, what is the measure of damages. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned judge set aside and the application of M. R. Patny is dismissed with costs here and below.
-
1966 (12) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ishnier Sons. That balance-sheet was signed by the directors of the company mdash the objection that only a copy has been filed cannot be entertained since the copy was marked by consent as proof of the original, the accuracy of which was undisputed, and the decision in K. S. Want v. New Akot Cotton Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. AIR. 1958 SC. 437 has no bearing mdash and, as held in Rajah of Vizianagaram v. Official Liquidator, Vizianagaram Mining Co. Ltd. 1952 22 Comp. Cas. 1 constitutes an acknowledgement of liability sufficient to give a fresh starting point for limitation. With the observation to the contrary in Kashinath v. New Akot Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. in paragraph 18 of the report I am with great respect unable to agree, and, it seems to me, that that has been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court in the decision just referred to. I allow the petition and order that the company be wound up. The petitioners will get their costs from the assets of the company
-
1966 (12) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1966 (12) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... in order to ascertain which persons might be affected and in what manner their rights may have to be protected. Further, the present application is by the very party which has prevented the court from issuing notice by advertisement. I do not consider it correct on principle to hear an application for an interim order or interim relief or direction at the instance of the very party which has disabled the court from issuing notice in the manner ordinarily prescribed by company law and thus deprived it of the avenues of informing itself on all materials relevant to the prayer now made. I therefore dismiss this application. I need hardly add that this does not prevent either the company or any interested person from taking, at an appropriate stage, properly framed proceedings, such as are contemplated or provided by the Companies Act, complying with all the provisions of the Act designed to elicit the opinion of and ensure the protection of the rights of all interested parties.
-
1966 (12) TMI 35 - COMPANIES TRIBUNAL AT BOMBAY
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... the petitions. We, therefore, direct the company in petition No. 9 of 1966 to rectify its register of members in respect of shares bearing distinctive numbers 4399 to 4698 by deleting the name of the deceased Gordhanbhai and entering the name of the petitioner, Navinchandra Ratilal Patel. In petition No. 10 of 1966, we direct the company to rectify its register by deleting the name of the deceased, Gordhanbhai, in respect of shares bearing distinctive numbers 4099 to 4398 and entering the name of the petitioner, Prafulkumar Ratilal Patel. We further direct that the company should file notices of rectification with the Registrar of Companies for the State of Maharashtra within 30 days from today. We make it clear that nothing in this order will prejudice the rights of respondent No. 3 to get a decision on the question of title in respect of these shares by filing a suit, if so advised. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in both these petitions.
-
1966 (12) TMI 10 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... unal and the entire material on record it appears that the appellant has submitted an affidavit sworn in on 5-3-1991 to the Assistant Collector of Customs requesting that goods under seizure may not be disposed of as examination of goods are very important. There is no mention in the order-in-original that there was a request made by appellant for inspection of goods at the time of personal hearing. It is further alleged by appellant that the lower adjudicating authorities disposed of the goods before the disposal of the matter finally. The following question of law arises for reference to Hon rsquo ble High Court of Allahabad ldquo Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the confiscation of the seized goods when seized goods were disposed of prior to issuance of show cause notice, in spite of repeated requests of the appellant, not to dispose of seized goods in order to ascertain the version of the appellant that most of the seized goods were of Indian origin. rdquo
-
1966 (12) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... that the principles of natural justice were not observed and it was not given an opportunity of being heard this court can always interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and direct that a fair hearing be given to the petitioner. This power of the High Court will not be affected by the fact that a Civil suit has been filed by the aggrieved party. 7.For these reasons, I allow this Writ, quash the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated 18-2-1964 (Annexure IV), the appellate order of the Collector of Excise dated the 30th October, 1964 (Annexure V) and the revisional order of Government of India dated the 22nd September, 1965 (Annexure VII) and direct the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, to rehear the refund claim of the petitioner dated 31-1-1964 and dispose of it according to law bearing in mind the observations contained in this judgment. In the circumstances, there will be no order for Costs. Assent per A.B.N. Sinha, J. . I agree.
-
1966 (12) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 - Expenses for marriage metout of cash presents received by parents - such expenses cannot be treated as an expenditure of the family for the purposes of expenditure tax.
-
1966 (12) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the `previous year` for the asst. yr. 1959-60 in respect of the contract business was correctly taken as the year ending on the March 31, 1959 - Held, yes
-
1966 (12) TMI 6 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
Computation of income - minor child - having regard to the provisions of sub-s. (2) of section 161, section 64(v) of the IT Act was applicable to the assessee`s case
-
1966 (12) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Receipt in the hands of the assessee for the loss of profits in business and not as a gift - contention of assesseethat the amount was not income, profits or gains but only a casual and non-recurring receipt, not acceptable - taxable as revenue receipt
-
1966 (12) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether the loan of Rs. 71,820 raised on the security of life insurance policies, but admittedly utilized in acquiring taxable assets, was to be deducted in arriving at the net wealth of the assessee for purposes of the WT Act - Held, no
-
1966 (12) TMI 3 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the ITO's order and refusing to renew registration for the assessment year 1956-57 on the ground that O's signature to the application was a mandatory requirement, as he had attained majority - Held, yes
........
|
