|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1801 Records
-
1978 (11) TMI 139 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Amendment and Validating Act, the Deputy Commissioner s order was rendered invalid. That will obviously amount to a mistake apparent from the record. For rectification of such a mistake, the only remedy was to invoke or take recourse to section 17 of the Act. No such action has been taken for rectification of the mistake. On the other hand, the assessing authority has sought to revise the order of the superior authority, which is beyond his jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue, therefore, rightly quashed the order of the assessing authority raising the demand and there is no scope for raising any question of law from the order of the Board of Revenue dated 7th March, 1977. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not see any justification to direct the Board to state the case and refer the question as mentioned in the application under section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The same is, therefore, hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Application rejected.
-
1978 (11) TMI 138 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t might have thought fit as advised to specify different articles having regard to the nature and use of the articles. It would not, in our opinion, therefore, resolve the question with which we are concerned in the present reference. We have to construe the positive enactment made in section 13(1)(B) where the articles in question are consumable stores required in the manufacture of goods. The expression manufacture of goods has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as stated above. We do not find any express warrant in the main enactment of this section or a necessary implication in the context so as to justify us in agreeing with the Tribunal when it has taken a restrictive meaning of the term manufacture of taxable goods for sale . The result, therefore, is that we must answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 137 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hich it was the ordinary business of the furriers. It was a contract for sale of chattel. It cannot be said that the contract in that case was for use of skill and labour to bring about the desired result. The finished article so prepared could well be sold to any other customer like any other garment in the usual course of the business. That case, therefore, is quite distinguishable. 7.. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 7th February, 1972 (annexure P-1), passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, in Revision Case No. 256/RYP/1971-72 and the one dated 30th January, 1970 (annexure P-2), passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, in Case No. 241 of 1969-70 are hereby quashed. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Raipur, shall now proceed to assess the turnover to sales tax afresh in the light of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 136 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w of that State enjoy exemption and, similarly, goods, which are subjected to tax at a rate lower than four per cent, in the State where the assessment is to be made, have to pay a lower rate of tax. While interpreting the proviso to section 9 one cannot ignore this, as the immediate result of an assessment being made in one State would affect the tax liability. As the proviso relates to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer and has a direct relationship with the tax liability of the dealer, it cannot be put in the category of a procedural law. The Judge (Revisions) was right in holding that the assessee could not be assessed by the Sales Tax Officer in U.P. The first question is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of the answer given to the first question, the second question becomes academic and is returned unanswered. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1978 (11) TMI 135 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... round the assessee s claim for deduction cannot be denied. It would neither be logical nor reasonable to insist on a claim for refund being made in the course of the assessment year during which the sale of the goods has been occasioned, when the goods themselves are returned and the claim for refund itself can arise only beyond the assessment year. The view that we take is supported by the two rulings of the Madras High Court in Madras Radiators and Pressings v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 37 S.T.C. 123. and Devi Films (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras 1961 12 S.T.C. 274., and by the ruling of the Andhra High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vauhini Pictures P. Ltd. 1962 13 S.T.C. 847. 6.. We allow this tax revision case and set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for passing consequential orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 134 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed chicken dealt in by the petitioner was neither canned, preserved, dried or dehydrated. Only in those forms meat is exempted from tax. There was no evidence to this effect because the petitioner himself did not originally claim any exemption for the dressed chicken. It was as an afterthought and at a later stage he raised this claim before the Deputy Commissioner when he sent a notice to the petitioner asking why the exemption given in respect of fresh milk should not be withdrawn. In view of this lack of evidence and also the conduct of the petitioner, when he did not originally claim exemption in respect of the dressed chicken, we do not think that this item deserves consideration at this stage. In the result, we are not inclined to accept the two contentions raised by Sri Sankaram while commending the tax revision case for our acceptance. The tax revision case is consequently dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 133 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held that section 37 creates an absolute liability and the doctrine of mens rea has no place in it. We may mention that, prior to the decision in Ajit Mills case 1977 40 S.T.C. 497 (S.C.)., this Bench had taken the very same view in Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1977 40 S.T.C. 488. Apart from the five points dealt with above, no other point was urged or canvassed before us. We, therefore, find that the petitioners, who were registered dealers, had collected tax on transactions of sales of goods which were not exigible to tax and had thus contravened the provisions of section 46(2). For the reasons given above, we hold that the amounts wrongfully collected by the petitioners by way of tax were rightly ordered to be forfeited to the Government. The result is that these petitions fail and are dismissed and the rule issued in each of them is discharged. The petitioners will pay to the respondents the costs of these petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 132 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iginal order of assessment and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction under section 19(1) of the Act to initiate proceedings for reassessment. But, in view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it must be held that if the Sales, Tax Officer had erroneously failed to assess any sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under the Act, it is a case of escaped assessment . The Tribunal has not found that the action of the Sales Tax Officer in initiating proceedings under section 19(1) of the Act was not bona fide. In these circumstances, the view of the Tribunal that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment under the provisions of section 19(1) of the Act cannot be upheld. 4.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us for opinion is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 131 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of section 7. But that is not so. The purposes of the two registrations are altogether different. It, therefore, follows that if a person indulges in inter-State sale, he has to get himself registered under section 7(1) and if he fails to do so, he exposes himself to the penalties prescribed under the law. The Board of Revenue was altogether in error in holding that the registration under sub-section (2) of section 7 can be deemed to be registration under sub-section (1) thereof. 4.. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant (the assessee in the present case) has not obtained registration under section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and for his failure to apply and obtain registration under section 7(1) penalty could be imposed under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 5.. Consequently, our answer to the question is in the negative. As none appeared for the assessee, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 130 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 5 of 1975 will stand allowed to the extent that the orders dated 26th July, 1975, on exhibits P5 to P7 revisions will stand quashed. We repeat that nothing said in this judgment should be understood as precluding the sales tax authorities, if so entitled and so advised, from proceeding to recover the penal interest in accordance with law. We affirm the finding of the learned Judge regarding exhibits P4 and P8 orders. The original petition will stand dismissed as far as these orders are concerned. There will be no order as to costs. 4.. We cannot help observing that this appeal seems really unnecessary. The learned Judge passed his judgment on the footing that exhibits P5 to P7 revisions were pending. They had been disposed of even when the learned Judge delivered judgment. It might have been enough to have the matter posted before the learned Judge to be spoken to , or to apply for review. Issue carbon copy-of this judgment to all counsel on usual terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1978 (11) TMI 129 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... effect and substance, a question whether the transactions were really inter-State sales effected by the assessee and whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that they were inter-State sales was justified. We cannot accede to this submission of the learned Advocate for the assessee since the question referred to us is on the assumption of the facts and circumstances of the case as found by the Tribunal to be correct. We have got to proceed on that basis since the assessee has not thought fit not only by not seeking a specific question about the perversity of the finding by praying for such a specific question but has accepted it in its application before the Tribunal to be correct. In that view of the matter, therefore, we have no other alternative but to answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1978 (11) TMI 128 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ases, sticking to the words of the taxing statute and asking ourselves the right questions, which the words of charge raise, might be the easiest and the most satisfactory way of arriving at solutions in tax cases. On the pertinent question in this case as to whether the amount of Rs. 10,16,857.32 is or is not to be included in the assessees sales turnover, we have examined not only the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, but also the relevant Rules under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, to find what fiscal character the said amount bears. And, for the reasons we have earlier set out, we must answer the question in the assessees favour, holding that the amount does not form part of their assessable turnover. This tax revision case is accordingly allowed. The assessing authority is directed to exclude the amount in question from the assessment for 1970-71. The respondent will pay the assessees costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... basis of the admission made by the respondent in the returns submitted by the respondent for the relevant years, that the appropriate authorities had jurisdiction to pass the orders of assessment, that the amounts could not be ordered to be refunded to the respondent except on the footing that the assessment orders are erroneous, that the finding that the assessment orders are erroneous which alone would lead to an order for refund of the amount collected in pursuance thereof could be given only by the Tribunals constituted in accordance with the provisions of the very Act, that there was a provision for refund of the amount wrongly collected in rule 16, which has now been replaced by section 39-A of the Act, and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit by virtue of section 51 of the Act. We accordingly allow the appeal with costs throughout and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned First Assistant Judge and dismiss the suit. Appeal allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 126 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt with the said view. Apparently, therefore, the requirement under rule 8-D for production of the C forms could not be said to be mandatory and the petitioner could not be denied exemption merely on that ground. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Shivnarayan Jagatnarayan, Raigarh 1978 42 S.T.C. 315 1978 Vikraya Kar Nirnaya (11) 168., a Division Bench of this Court also took the same view. It is, therefore, apparent that in the orders of the assessing authority as well as that of the Commissioner of Sales Tax exercising revisional jurisdiction, there is an apparent error on the face of the record. 12A. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders passed by the authorities referred to above are hereby quashed. In the light of the concession made by the learned counsel for the respondents about the legal position, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner, after verification. Petition allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Power of tribunal to stay winding-up ... ... ... ... ..... rs even after the appointment of a provisional liquidator and after a winding-up order. I am, therefore, unable to accept Shri Mahin-dar Narain s contention that an application by a former director should be treated as on the same footing as an application by a stranger. I may also refer to a decision reported in XLV Law Times (NS) 676 in the case of The Aston Hull Coal and Brick Company Ltd. In this case the company had been ordered to be wound up ex parte and Kay J., though with some reluctance, followed the order of Chitty J. in an earlier case and set aside the ex parte order. This case indicates that the notion of setting aside a winding-up order is not in any way unusual or impractical. For the above reasons I am in entire agreement with Kapur J. and hold that C. A. No. 645/77 seeking to set aside the winding-up order is maintainable. In view of these conclusions both this application as well as C. A. No. 644/77 will be posted for hearing on merits on December 13, 1978.
-
1978 (11) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annual Return – Penalty for not filing ... ... ... ... ..... t, after the time was over, the original of Ex. P-4 letter was addressed by the respondent to the petitioner, but as disclosed by Ex. P-5 it had come back without being served. It cannot, therefore, be said that in spite of the petitioner having been cautioned in time the default took place and, therefore, he had knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the default or non-compliance. On a proper construction of the provisions contained in section 159, sub-section (1) of section 161, section 162 and section 5 of the Act, it could be seen that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the petitioner was an officer of the company who was in default. That being the position, the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner by the court below under section 162 of the Act are without any legal basis. Accordingly, I allow this revision, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1978 (11) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Companies Law Board – Power of, Appeal against orders of, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398
-
1978 (11) TMI 103 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... For the purpose of s. 5(1) (xvxii) of the WT Act industrial undertaking means as undertaking engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. The instant case falls within the expression manufacturing of goods . The firm in which the assessee is a partner manufactures Pickles and Spices. The product manufactured by the firm is something which is entirely different from the raw materials used and thus the manufacturing activities result into bringing into existence of something which is different from its components. Thus the assessee is entitled to the exemption as prescribed in s. 5(xxxii) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Wealth-tax Officer to ascertain the value of the interests of the assessee in the assets of the industrial undertaking and exempt that value from the liability to wealth-tax. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... fictitious claim. Shri Jasraj has also not been questioned as to how the travelling expenses could have been claimed to the extent mentioned. (Inasmuch as the evidence goes to show that services were rendered by Shri Jasraj, that the assessee had paid the amounts of Rs. 15,000 to Shri Jasraj, and inasmuch as in Shri Jasraj own case there is no material to suggest that the amount of Rs. 15,000 was not actually expended by him as claimed since if there was no such expenditure it would only stand to reason that portion of the amount received from the assessee would have constituted part of his income since it was part of business dealings as far as Shri Jasraj was concerned, to the extent there was no expenditure by Shri Jasraj and would have been assessed as such, which has not been done. We have to hold that there is no warrant for making any disallowance in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is accordingly entitled to further relief of Rs. 14,000. The appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 98 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... T vs. Mrs. Paramati Hariprasad Vas(7) (ii) Mahadeo Prasad Rais vs. ITO, Gorakhpur(8) 8. Our attention was invited to page 220 of the Gujarat High Court s decisions. We are unable to follow as to how the observation on this page of the report support the Revenue s contention. The observation is to the effect that a share which is allotted to the wife or the mother on partition is not a share in the true sense but only a provision for maintenance. Neither this observation nor the ratio of the judgement has any relevance to the issue before us. In Mahadeo Prasad s case the question which had fallen for consideration was whether assets acquired by an individual after partition could be treated as joint family assets. This question was answered in the negative. Here again the issue is different. 9. We, therefore, hold that the view consistently taken by this Tribunal still holds the field and fully supports the finding of the learned AAC. 10. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
............
|
