|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 835 Records
-
1969 (9) TMI 100
The petitioner, a partnership firm, filed a return claiming exemption from sales tax for handspun woollen yarn sales. Sales Tax Officer assessed tax despite petitioner's claim of exemption. Court ruled in favor of petitioner, quashing the assessment order. No costs awarded. (Case: 1969 (9) TMI 100 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
-
1969 (9) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default.
2. Validity of Regulation 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957.
3. Interpretation of Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
4. Comparison with similar statutes and judicial precedents.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default:
The primary question was whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default when the appellant or their counsel failed to appear. The court found that Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, did not empower the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default. The Tribunal is enjoined to dispose of the appeal on merits, irrespective of the appellant's presence.
2. Validity of Regulation 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957:
Regulation 9 of the Tribunal's regulations, which allowed the dismissal of an appeal for default, was challenged. The court held that any regulation framed under the Act must be consistent with the Act itself. Since Section 21(4) did not authorize the dismissal of appeals for default, Regulation 9 was deemed ultra vires and inconsistent with the Act. Consequently, Regulation 9 was struck down as it contravened the statutory provisions.
3. Interpretation of Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957:
The court interpreted Section 21(4) to mean that the Tribunal must dispose of appeals on their merits. The Tribunal's powers include confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annulling assessments or penalties, and directing fresh assessments. The power to "pass such other orders as it may think fit" in sub-clause (iii) was interpreted ejusdem generis with the other sub-clauses, meaning it should also relate to the merits of the assessment. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's duty to safeguard public revenue necessitates a merits-based decision, even in the absence of the appellant.
4. Comparison with similar statutes and judicial precedents:
The court referenced similar provisions and judicial interpretations from other statutes, such as the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Income-tax Act. It cited the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Chenniappa Mudaliar, which held that appellate tribunals must dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for default. The court also discussed the Allahabad High Court's decision in Hindustan Metal Works v. Sales Tax Officer, which supported the view that appeals should be decided on merits to protect public revenue interests.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, does not have the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default. Regulation 9 of the Tribunal's regulations was found to be ultra vires and inconsistent with Section 21(4) of the Act. The Tribunal is required to dispose of appeals on merits, ensuring that public revenue is safeguarded. The orders of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal for default were quashed, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on merits. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sales Tax Officer needs to make an assessment order and issue a notice of demand to recover interest under section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Necessity of Assessment Order and Notice of Demand for Recovering Interest:
Background and Legislative Context:
The primary question referred to the Full Bench was whether, to recover interest under section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, it is necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to issue an assessment order and a notice of demand. This provision was introduced by the Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act of 1963, which added sub-section (1-A) to section 8 of the Principal Act. The provision stipulates that if the tax remains unpaid for six months, interest at 18% per annum shall be added to the tax and be deemed part of the tax.
Arguments by Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that section 8(1-A) creates a legal fiction that interest is part of the tax. Therefore, the procedure for demanding tax should also apply to interest, requiring an assessment order and a notice of demand. They contended that without these formalities, recovery proceedings are not competent. They also argued that this interpretation is necessary to ensure that assessees have a forum for appeal, revision, or reference regarding interest liability.
Court's Analysis:
1. Scope of Section 8(1-A):
- The court noted that section 8(1-A) falls under the chapter dealing with payment and recovery of tax. The provision for interest was introduced to facilitate tax recovery and to exert pressure on assessees to pay. The words "and be deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax" were interpreted to mean that interest should be treated as part of the tax for recovery purposes only.
2. Automatic Liability:
- The court found that the liability to pay interest is automatic and does not require a separate assessment order or notice of demand. The use of the word "run" in section 8(1-A) indicates that interest accrues automatically on the unpaid tax. The addition of interest to the tax amount is also automatic.
3. Calculation vs. Assessment:
- The court emphasized that interest calculation is a matter of arithmetic and does not require an assessment order. The first proviso to section 8(1-A) uses the term "recalculated," indicating a straightforward calculation rather than an assessment.
4. Absence of Amendment for Appeal:
- The court noted that no amendment was made to section 9 to provide for an appeal against interest liability, suggesting that the legislature did not intend for interest to be assessed separately.
5. Practical Considerations:
- The court highlighted practical difficulties in issuing a notice of demand for interest, as the exact amount of interest cannot be determined until the tax is paid. A notice of demand must specify a precise sum, which is not feasible for interest accruing daily.
6. Remedies for Assessees:
- The court acknowledged that assessees are not left remediless. They can challenge the calculation of interest during recovery proceedings or through other available legal remedies.
Dissenting Opinion:
- One judge dissented, arguing that the legal fiction in section 8(1-A) should extend to all aspects of tax, including the need for an assessment order and a notice of demand. The dissenting judge emphasized that the legal fiction should be carried to its logical conclusion, ensuring that assessees have access to statutory remedies like appeal and revision.
Conclusion:
- The majority judgment concluded that it is not necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to issue an assessment order or a notice of demand for recovering interest under section 8(1-A). The liability to pay interest is automatic and does not require separate proceedings. The court answered the referred question in the negative, against the petitioners and in favor of the Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad ruled that under section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Sales Tax Officer is not required to issue an assessment order or a notice of demand to recover interest. The liability to pay interest is automatic, and the interest is deemed part of the tax for recovery purposes only. The court emphasized practical difficulties and the legislative intent behind the provision, concluding that assessees are not left without remedies to challenge interest calculations.
-
1969 (9) TMI 97
The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The benefit of concessional rate was not given as Form 'C' was not filed. Attempts for rectification were rejected as 'C' Forms were received after assessment. Court held no mistake apparent on record, dismissing the petition.
-
1969 (9) TMI 96
Issues:
- Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to exemption from sales tax on the turnover related to the supply of metal from its quarries.
- Interpretation of the exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue dated 10th June, 1957, in relation to the sales of metal quarried by the assessee-firm.
- Determining if the transactions in question qualify as "earth work and gravel quarrying contracts" under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Analysis:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed two tax revision cases concerning the turnover of an assessee-firm related to the supply of metal from its quarries. The firm claimed exemption from sales tax on the grounds of owning the land, paying land tax, and the applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue dated 10th June, 1957. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the exemption claim, emphasizing that paying land tax does not automatically exempt the turnover from sales tax. The core issue revolved around whether the firm could claim exemption under the mentioned government order.
The court examined the definition of "goods" under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which includes materials to be used in construction or repair of property. The firm argued that the sales of metal quarried from its land should be exempted under item No. 11 of the G.O., pertaining to "earth work and gravel quarrying contracts." However, the court noted that the exemption applies to contracts involving the severance of materials from land before sale, which was not evident in the firm's transactions. Previous case laws were cited to support the distinction between quarrying contracts and sales of quarried materials, reinforcing that mere supply agreements do not qualify for exemption.
Despite the firm's contention that the exemption should cover the sales of quarried metal, the court found no legal basis for such an interpretation. The court concluded that the transactions did not meet the criteria for exemption under the G.O. Consequently, the revision cases were dismissed, affirming the liability of the assessee-firm to pay sales tax on the disputed turnover. The judgment emphasized the necessity of contractual agreements involving the severance of materials from land to qualify for the specified exemption.
-
1969 (9) TMI 95
Issues:
Validity of assessments of sales tax on transactions involving import of art silk, dyes, and chemicals by a registered society and distribution to its members holding actual user's license.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the court concerned petitions filed by the National Chamber of Commerce, Madras, challenging the validity of sales tax assessments on transactions involving the import of goods and subsequent distribution to its members. The court noted that the petitioner, a registered dealer, had collected sales tax from its members who received the imported goods. The department based its assessment on the explanation to the definition of "dealer" and "sale" under the Act. The court observed that if the petitioner imported goods and transferred property to its members for consideration, it could be considered a taxable sale. However, upon examining the facts, the court found that the distribution process did not amount to a sale of goods. The court referred to a letter from the Director of Handlooms outlining the distribution scheme for dyes and chemicals, indicating that the petitioner acted as an agent or trustee for its members without having ownership of the imported goods.
The court highlighted the conditions imposed on the petitioner regarding the distribution of goods, emphasizing that the petitioner was not permitted to sell or dispose of the goods except to its members for bona fide consumption. The court concluded that the petitioner was merely facilitating the import and distribution process on behalf of its members and did not have ownership rights over the goods. The court similarly analyzed the import and distribution process of art silk yarn, reiterating that the petitioner acted as an intermediary without possessing property in the goods. The court emphasized that the distribution did not involve a transfer of property, thereby negating the application of sales tax on the transactions.
In its decision, the court clarified that for a transaction to be considered a sale attracting sales tax, there must be a transfer of property. Since the import and distribution process by the petitioner did not entail a transfer of property, it could not be deemed as sales attracting tax liability. The court specifically excluded local purchases made by the petitioner from mills from the scope of the judgment. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the assessment orders, and awarded costs to the petitioner.
-
1969 (9) TMI 94
Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax for the year 1955-56.
2. Initiation of reassessment proceeding on 18th October, 1960.
3. Interpretation of limitation provisions under section 13(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
4. Application of case law in determining the limitation period for reassessment.
5. Comparison of provisions under different Sales Tax Acts.
6. Relevance of previous court decisions in similar cases.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment of sales tax for the year 1955-56 on a dealer, initially assessed at a turnover of Rs. 72,189-12-3. Subsequently, a reassessment was conducted based on seized account books, resulting in a revised turnover of Rs. 7,33,774, leading to an appeal and further revision.
2. The key issue was the initiation of the reassessment proceeding on 18th October, 1960, more than four years from the end of the year 1955-56. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the reassessment was barred by limitation under section 13(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, which led to the reference to the High Court.
3. The interpretation of the limitation provision under section 13(6) was crucial. The Tribunal argued that the reassessment proceeding was governed by section 24(5) of the Act, not the four-year limitation under section 13(6), as it was a review initiated under rule 39 after obtaining the Commissioner's sanction.
4. The application of case law, specifically referencing the Supreme Court decision in The State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi, was pivotal. The court differentiated between original assessment and reassessment, concluding that the reassessment in this case was indeed barred by limitation under section 13(6) due to the delayed initiation.
5. A comparison of provisions under different Sales Tax Acts, particularly the Bihar Act and the Orissa Act, was made to establish the specific applicability of limitation periods. The court highlighted the differences in provisions and emphasized the relevance of the Bihar Act's specific limitation clauses.
6. Previous court decisions, such as Gajo Ram Basant Ram v. The State of Bihar and Premchand Satramdas v. State of Bihar, were cited to support the Tribunal's decision on limitation for reassessment. The court also referenced decisions from other jurisdictions to draw parallels and strengthen the argument for limitation in the present case.
In conclusion, the High Court, comprising MISRA S.C. C.J. and WASIUDDIN S., JJ., upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee that the assessment for the year 1955-56 was indeed barred by limitation under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The reference was answered accordingly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in tax assessment proceedings.
-
1969 (9) TMI 93
The High Court dismissed four Letters Patent Appeals challenging the classification of spare parts of tractors as luxury goods under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The court held that tractors are not considered motor vehicles and are not luxury goods, based on precedents and notification. The Advocate-General for the State conceded that the decision of the Single Judge was correct. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 92
Petition filed by respondent No. 1 under article 226 of the Constitution was allowed and a notice dated March 11, 1963, issued to him under section 31(1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 17 of 1947), hereinafter called the Act, was quashed
Held that:- Appeal allowed. These again are matters which cannot be decided at this stage and it is for respondent No. 1 to show these and other relevant provisions to the authority by which the impugned notice has been issued and to satisfy it that production of accounts as called for will not be in conformity with the statutory provisions. At any rate it appears to us that the matter has to be decided under section 31(1) on the evidence and the accounts which are already on the record and no further or additional evidence can be called for and adduced.
-
1969 (9) TMI 90
Whether a Sales Tax Inspector inspecting the accounts under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (2 of 1959) is entitled to remove obstruction to the inspection of account books?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Sales Tax Inspector was acting in execution of his duty as a Sales Tax Inspector and the appellant used criminal force against the Sales Tax Inspector. Further he intended to deter the Sales Tax Inspector and prevent him from discharging his duty as a public servant.
-
1969 (9) TMI 76
The petition for winding up the respondent-company under section 433(e) of the Companies Act was dismissed by the High Court of Madras. The dispute was raised regarding the debt owed by the company, with evidence showing it was due to Sri C.R. Chandra, not the petitioner. The court found the dispute to be bona fide and not for adjudication, leading to the dismissal of the petition. (Case citation: 1969 (9) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)
-
1969 (9) TMI 68
Whether the plaintiff (bank) is not entitled to file this suit as against the defendant No. 1 (the company) without obtaining the leave of the company judge as alleged ? If so, its effect ?
Whether the court has no jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the plaintiff's claim in view of the facts as alleged in para. 12(A) of the written statement ? If so, its effect ?
Whether the suit against defendant No. 2 (Ranjit Singh) is not maintainable as pleaded under paras. 7,13 and 14 of the written statement ?
Held that:- Unable to agree with the High Court that the suit filed was premature. The bank was, under the terms of the bond executed by Ranjit Singh, entitled to claim at any time the money due from the company as well as Ranjit Singh under the promissory note and the bond. The suit could not, therefore, be said to be premature. The High Court, instead of dismissing the suit, should have stayed it till "the ultimate balance" due to the bank from the company was determined. We deem it necessary to observe that a binding obligation created under a composition under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, between the company and its creditors, does not affect the liability of the surety unless the contract of suretyship otherwise provides.
The High Court, in our judgment, should have stayed the suit and after "the ultimate balance" due by the company was determined, the court should have proceeded to decree the claim according to the provisions of clause 4 of the bond. We accordingly modify the decree passed by the trial court. Liability of Ranjit Singh being only for payment of "the ultimate balance" which remains due on the cash credit account with the bank in favour of the company, the court will, when such ultimate balance is determined, proceed to pass a decree in favour of the bank.
-
1969 (9) TMI 67
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the insurance policy (indemnity vs. special contingency).
2. Obligation of the company to pay Rs. 65,000.
3. Applicability of the arbitration clause.
4. Company's alleged inability to pay its debts under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Insurance Policy:
The core issue revolves around whether the policy issued by the company is a contract of indemnity or a special contingency policy. The petitioner argued that the policy was a special contingency policy, not a contract of indemnity, and upon the occurrence of the specified event (cancellation of the M.C.C. Test match), the company was obligated to pay Rs. 65,000 without inquiring into the actual loss. Conversely, the company contended that the policy was a contract of indemnity, requiring the petitioner to prove actual loss incurred due to the cost of printing advertisements. The court noted that the policy's operative part used the phrase "the company shall indemnify the insured," indicating a contract of indemnity, which necessitates proof of loss by the insured.
2. Obligation of the Company to Pay Rs. 65,000:
The petitioner claimed that upon the cancellation of the M.C.C. Test match, the contingency specified in the policy materialized, thus entitling him to Rs. 65,000. The company disputed this, arguing that the sum mentioned was the maximum amount claimable and that the petitioner had not incurred any costs towards printing advertisements. The court emphasized that the policy's terms and the representations made by the petitioner at the time of obtaining the policy were crucial in determining the company's liability. The court also highlighted the need to ascertain whether the policy was a valued policy or if the sum of Rs. 65,000 was merely the upper limit of liability.
3. Applicability of the Arbitration Clause:
The policy included an arbitration clause, stipulating that any disputes regarding the amount of loss or damage must be referred to arbitration, and an award must be obtained before any right of action or suit could be pursued. The company argued that this clause made arbitration a condition precedent to any claim, thus invalidating the statutory notice under Section 434. The court concurred, noting that the petitioner's failure to secure an arbitration award precluded him from claiming the amount under the policy through a winding-up petition.
4. Company's Alleged Inability to Pay Its Debts:
The petitioner argued that the company's failure to pay Rs. 65,000 despite a statutory notice indicated its inability to pay debts under Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company countered, asserting that the debt was bona fide disputed, and the winding-up petition was an abuse of the court's process. The court referred to established legal principles, emphasizing that a winding-up petition is not a legitimate means to enforce a disputed debt. The court found that the company's refusal to pay was based on substantial grounds, not frivolous or vexatious reasons. Furthermore, the petitioner conceded that the company was not commercially insolvent, as evidenced by its substantial cash reserves.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the company's refusal to pay was based on substantial grounds, and the petitioner's attempt to resolve the dispute through a winding-up petition constituted an abuse of the court's process. The court directed that the costs of the petition be quantified at Rs. 500, to be borne by the petitioner if arbitration proceedings or a suit were not commenced within 12 weeks.
-
1969 (9) TMI 65
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a company in liquidation can transfer its tenancy rights without the consent of the landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Whether the official liquidator can claim or receive any payment in consideration of the transfer or assignment of the tenancy rights.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Transfer of Tenancy Rights Without Landlord's Consent:
The primary issue is whether a company in liquidation can transfer its tenancy rights without the landlord's consent under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The court examined several provisions of the Rent Act, particularly Section 5 and Section 16. Section 5(3) explicitly states that it is unlawful for a tenant to claim or receive any payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer, or assignment of his tenancy without the landlord's consent. Section 16(3) further states that no tenant shall transfer or assign his rights in the tenancy without the previous consent in writing of the landlord.
The court referenced various cases to analyze this issue. In the case of West Hopetown Tea Company Ltd., it was held that the court's power to sanction a sale by the liquidator overrides a private contract against assignment by the parties. However, the court in this case concluded that the liquidator's act of assigning the tenancy is essentially the act of the company. Therefore, the liquidator, acting on behalf of the company, is bound by the same restrictions as the company, including obtaining the landlord's consent for the transfer of tenancy rights.
2. Claim or Receipt of Payment for Assignment of Tenancy:
The second issue is whether the official liquidator can claim or receive any payment in consideration of the transfer or assignment of the tenancy rights. Section 5(2) of the Rent Act prohibits any person from claiming or receiving any payment in addition to the rent for the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy. This prohibition extends to the official liquidator as well.
The court cited the case of Shanti Pershad Narinder Kumar v. Paras Ram Har Nand Rai, where it was held that there is no absolute prohibition on the transfer of the tenant's interest by operation of law. However, the court in this judgment concluded that the liquidator's act of assigning the tenancy rights is not a forced sale but an act of the company. Therefore, the liquidator cannot claim or receive any payment for the assignment of tenancy rights in violation of Section 5 of the Rent Act.
The court also discussed the policy of the Rent Act, which aims to prevent the assignment of tenancies without the landlord's consent and the passing of premiums in consideration of such assignments. Allowing the liquidator to receive such premiums would undermine the legislative intent and could potentially lead to the circumvention of the Rent Act's provisions.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that:
1. The official liquidator cannot transfer the tenancy rights of the company without the consent of the landlord.
2. The official liquidator cannot claim or receive any payment in consideration of the transfer or assignment of the tenancy rights.
The judgment emphasized that the restrictions imposed by the Rent Act apply equally to the official liquidator as they do to the company. The liquidator's acts are considered acts of the company, and therefore, the liquidator is bound by the same legal constraints regarding the transfer of tenancy rights and the receipt of payments for such transfers.
-
1969 (9) TMI 64
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.
2. Whether the Yogam is a "company having a share capital" or "a company not having a share capital".
3. Allegations against the general secretary and the management of the Yogam.
4. The legal remedies available to the Yogam to resolve the management stalemate.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The petition was filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act by ten members of the Yogam with the written consent of 265 other members. The general secretary opposed the petition, arguing it was not maintainable as the petitioners had not obtained the necessary consent from one-fifth of the total members as required by section 399 of the Companies Act. The court focused on whether the Yogam fell under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 399(1) to determine the maintainability. Since the Yogam has more than 40,000 members, the petition would only be maintainable if it is a "company having a share capital".
2. Company Classification:
The court examined whether the Yogam is a "company having a share capital" or "a company not having a share capital". The term "share capital" was not defined in the Companies Act, so the court referred to authoritative texts like Buckley on the Companies Acts and Palmer's Company Law to understand its meaning. The court concluded that a company having share capital must have an authorised or nominal capital divided into shares of a fixed amount. The Yogam's memorandum did not mention any authorised capital, and its shares were neither transferable nor inheritable, which indicated that the Yogam is not a company having a share capital. Therefore, the Yogam falls under clause (b) of section 399(1), making the petition not maintainable as it did not meet the one-fifth member requirement.
3. Allegations Against the General Secretary:
The petitioners alleged mismanagement and misconduct by the general secretary, including failing to convene meetings and allowing non-members to disrupt meetings. The general secretary denied these allegations and made counter-allegations against the president and others. The court noted that the factional fight between the president and the general secretary had created a calamitous situation, making it impossible to manage the Yogam's affairs according to law. However, the court did not delve into the merits of these allegations, as the primary issue was the maintainability of the petition.
4. Legal Remedies:
The court acknowledged the dire situation of the Yogam and suggested that the institution is not without remedy. Section 399(4) of the Companies Act allows the Central Government to authorize any member or members to apply to the court under sections 397 or 398, even if the requirements of clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) are not fulfilled. The court expressed hope that the Central Government would take necessary steps to resolve the management stalemate if approached. Additionally, the court urged the general secretary and the board of directors to act in the best interests of the institution and the community it serves.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as it was not maintainable under section 399(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The court highlighted the possibility of seeking authorization from the Central Government under section 399(4) to address the management issues. No order as to costs was made.
-
1969 (9) TMI 61
Whether such a corporate body may be considered to be a fit and proper person for appointment or re-appointment as managing agent, and that the enquiry must cover all relevant activities and actions of the directors of the corporate body?
Held that:- The High Court was right in holding that in determining whether Govan Brothers is a person fit and proper to be re-appointed managing agent, the past conduct and actings which were relevant to the issue had to be taken into account, i.e., the Board had to consider the entire conduct and actings past and present of the directors of Govan Brothers before rejecting the petition filed by the Rampur Company.
The appeal filed by the Rampur Company must therefore fail. It must, however, be pointed out that the time during which the managing agency of Govan Brothers is to remain in operation is fast running out. The Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the Company Law Board and the Union of India has assured us that with the co-operation of the Rampur Company, the Board will take steps to dispose of the application within one month from the date on which the order reaches the Company Law Board.
-
1969 (9) TMI 42
The Supreme Court set aside penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs, reducing them in part and vacating others. The appeal was allowed in part, confirming one penalty and setting aside others. The appellant did not press the appeal for one penalty. No costs were awarded.
-
1969 (9) TMI 41
Whether exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit does not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal?
Held that:- The finality which may be declared by the statute qua certain liability either by express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court or by clear implication does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs. The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit challenging the validity of the imposition of the duty of customs being excluded, the plaintiff's suit must fail.
The appeal is allowed. The suit is ordered to be dismissed. The order of costs passed by the High Court is however maintained
-
1969 (9) TMI 40
Issues Involved: Legality of demand notices issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; Applicability of Rule 10 versus Rule 10A; Limitation period for issuing demand notices.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Demand Notices under Rule 10A:
The Petitioner Company, a manufacturer of dye-stuffs, challenged the legality of demand notices dated December 24, 1965, and January 24, 1966, issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These notices demanded payment of Rs. 41,152.25 and Rs. 83,238.14, respectively. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona, had previously upheld these demands on March 26, 1966, rejecting the company's contentions.
2. Applicability of Rule 10 versus Rule 10A:
The Court referenced a prior Division Bench judgment from July 1/2, 1965, in Appeal No. 69 of 1963, which clarified the interpretation of Rules 10 and 10A. Rule 10 deals with the recovery of duties short-levied due to inadvertence, error, collusion, or misstatement, and mandates that such demands must be issued within three months. Rule 10A provides residuary powers for recovery where no specific provision exists. The Court held that Rule 10 applies to both short-levy and non-levy situations, rejecting the Department's argument that Rule 10A should apply when no initial levy occurred.
3. Limitation Period for Issuing Demand Notices:
The Court noted that the processed dyes were cleared between April 22, 1963, and December 16, 1964, for the first notice, and between March 29, 1962, and January 29, 1965, for the second notice. The Petitioner argued that the three-month limitation period under Rule 10 had expired well before the notices were issued. The Court agreed, stating that the first notice issued on December 24, 1965, was nearly two years late, and the second notice issued on January 24, 1966, was also significantly delayed.
4. Findings on the Assistant Collector's Decision:
The Assistant Collector had justified the use of Rule 10A, arguing that the processed dyes were never initially subject to excise duty. The Court criticized this reasoning, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector was bound by the Division Bench's interpretation of Rules 10 and 10A. The Court considered issuing a contempt notice but refrained, instead warning officers to adhere to judicial decisions.
5. Respondents' Contentions:
The Respondents argued that the Division Bench had not addressed situations where excise duty was evaded due to a mistake of law, suggesting Rule 10A should apply. The Court dismissed this argument, reiterating that any short-levy or non-levy must be addressed under Rule 10, as established by the Division Bench.
6. Illegality of the Notices and Order:
The Court found it extraordinary that the Department sought to issue demand notices without refunding the duty already paid on the basic dyes. The processed dyes were manufactured from dyes on which excise duty had been paid, making them eligible for exemption under the November 23, 1961, notification. Thus, the demand notices were illegal and unwarranted, issued beyond the prescribed time limit, and contrary to the Division Bench's decision.
Conclusion:
The Court set aside and struck off the impugned notices and the Assistant Collector's order dated March 26, 1966. The Petitioner's contentions were upheld, and the Rule was made absolute with costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 39
Issues:
1. Validity of the requirement for obtaining a license under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944.
2. Applicability of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules to the petitioners.
3. Interpretation of the notification exempting footwear below a certain value from licensing requirements.
4. Distinction between excise duty payment and the requirement for a license under the Act.
5. Availability of statutory remedies under the Act for challenging licensing decisions.
Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus challenging the requirement to obtain a license under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. The petitioners argued that they were not manufacturing excisable goods as defined under the Act and were exempt based on a notification exempting footwear below a certain value. The Central Government contended that Rule 174(2)(a) applied to the petitioners and that the notification did not exempt them from obtaining a license.
The Act defines excisable goods and prescribes duties on such goods. Section 6 mandates obtaining a license for engaging in the production or manufacture of specified goods. Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules requires manufacturers to hold a license. The petitioners, as footwear manufacturers, were deemed to be manufacturing excisable goods, and Rule 174(2)(a) was applicable to them.
The notification exempting footwear below a certain value did not absolve the petitioners from the licensing requirement. Even though the petitioners may not be liable for excise duty, they were still obligated to obtain a license under Rule 174. The Court found no illegality in the notice requiring the petitioners to obtain a license.
Additionally, the Court highlighted that the petitioners had previously filed similar applications, indicating a recurring issue. The Court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under the Act for challenging licensing decisions, including appeals and revisions. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petition and that statutory remedies should be pursued instead.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the requirement for the petitioners to obtain a license under the Act, emphasizing the distinction between excise duty payment and licensing obligations. The petition was dismissed, and the Court highlighted the availability of statutory remedies for challenging licensing decisions.
............
|
9911796707
