|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 2141 Records
-
1981 (12) TMI 164 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed for the benefit of the estate or the members of the joint Hindu family. The father or the manager is not the sole owner of the property. In fact until the partition takes place even his share does not stand demarcated. The ownership vests in all the copartners taken together as a unit. The father and the manager, there fore, only represent the copartners. Consequently the copartners stand bound by the act of the father or the manager of the family only to the extent the act is prudent or for the benefit of the copartners or the estate." In the instant case on the finding arrived at that the consideration for the sale deed Ext. B-S was thoroughly inadequate, the sale cannot be upheld. For the reasons given above the appeals must succeed. They are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court dated 6th November, 1968 is set aside, and that of the trial court is restored. In the circumstances of the case the parties should bear their own costs. Appeals allowed,
-
1981 (12) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e spent at the inflated rate of litigation costs. In our opinion, while not granting the substantial relief claimed by Motilal and looking to the conduct of all the parties, we direct that Motilal should be paid ₹ 7,500 inclusive of decretal amount, interest, proportionate costs and costs of the litigation till today, and for this amount there will be a charge on this property to be cleared by Govindro Mahadik at the time of redemption of the property which amount will have to be paid by Gyarasilal’s heirs in view of the sale-deed in favour of Gyarsilal. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 1144/69 filed by Govindrao Mahadik is allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside and those of the trial court are restored with costs throughout. Civil Appeal No. 1145/69 preferred by Motilal is disposed of in accordance with direction herein-above indicated with no order as to costs. CMP 9004/80 and CMP 10593/80 for substitution are allowed. Appeals allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 162 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... them. It is thus evident that in the case of M/s. Chetan and Co. the discount of 20% was denied to them by spiltting the size of their consignments to less than 200 dozens per despatch and thus the discount was not allowed to independent buyers on a uniform basis beyond the limit of 10 to 12%. The Govt. therefore hold that in view of what is stated in the foregoing paragraph it is clear that the traded discount were not allowed uniformally to all the individual buyers and that in limiting the benefit of maximum discount of 20% to M/s. S.T.S.R. and Co alone, the party did betray an extra commercial consideration to the related firm. In these circumstances Government consider that only that discount which was allowed on a uniform basis was admissible for deduction for the purposes of arriving at the assessable value as done by the Asstt. Collector. 5. Accordingly the Government set aside the order passed by the Appellate Collector and restore the order-in-original.
-
1981 (12) TMI 161 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... the appeal as defective, should have directed the appellants to file separate appeals for each individual order and should have thereafter disposed of the appeals on their merits, the date of filing of the individual appeal being treated the same as the date of filing of the consolidated appeal. Having regard to the facts of the case, therefore Government set aside the Order-In-Appeal for disposal of the appeals on their merits after the defects in question are removed. For this purpose Appellate Authority would doubtless give reasonable opportunity to the appellants. The revision application is disposed of accordingly with the above directions.
-
1981 (12) TMI 160 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... of processing involved cannot be considered to be manufacture for the production of any goods and in most cases the identity of the original steel material covered by specific items of the tariff is retained even after the process is completed. It is also evident that these are a part of the structure for erection for which the processes are carried out. The Board is therefore, in agreement with the appellant’s contention that the different processes carried out by them do not result in the manufacture of any new goods attracting duty under the C.E.T. Item 68. In any case, in the absence of any indication in the orders to the contrary there is no case for any levy. In the facts and circumstances of the case it could not also be said that even if it was held that the processes amounted to manufacture of new goods there was an attempt at evasion of duty. The Board therefore, allows the appeal setting aside the Collector’s orders demanding duty and imposing penalty.
-
1981 (12) TMI 158 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y is the amount of freight properly chargeable and what amount of freight was actually charged for in any given transaction. But in a matter of deduction under rule 6(c)(i) all that the assessee need establish is that whatever he had charged his customer for by way of freight was charged separately and that it did not from part of the price of the goods with respect to which the freight was charged. It does not matter whether, as between the dealer and the customer, the freight was either overcharged or undercharged. That is a consideration which is wholly irrelevant for deciding the question of deduction under the rule. For all the above reasons, we hold that the Board was not justified in reversing the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Board and restore the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in both the cases. The assessees will be entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. One set.
-
1981 (12) TMI 157 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods if at all passed on to the P.E.C. only on the high seas and therefore the assessee should get the benefit of exemption on that ground as well. I do not think that I should deal with this. The plain language of the section may give room for such a question which is a pure question of law. Investigation of shipping schedule and the present documents as listed cannot be considered as pure questions of law. The same was not urged before the respondent nor the material placed before him. Therefore, it is not proper for me to express any opinion in that matter without sufficient investigation. 19. In the result, rule issued is made absolute. The order impugned at exhibit M is hereby quashed in so far as it relates to denial of exemption in respect of the sale of spark plugs to Russia involving the exemption of Rs. 12,42,600. The bank guarantee furnished by the assessee-petitioner stands discharged. 20. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (12) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l, the respondent has opined that the wheels and top rollers manufactured by the petitioner are tractor parts. This opinion may be erroneous. But definitely the petitioner can demonstrate before the higher authorities under the Act by factual and technical data that this opinion is wrong. Certainly they have jurisdiction to go into this question and adjudicate it. The nature of the question which the petitioner wants this Court to investigate and answer cannot be said to be beyond factual controversy and an investigation into it will definitely involve investigation of complex questions of fact. These aspects can be appropriately agitated before the statutory tribunals. In this view, I do not feel called upon to go into the merits of the case and accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. The time taken in prosecuting the writ petitions will stand excluded if the petitioner desires to prosecute the statutory remedies under the Act.
-
1981 (12) TMI 155 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... approach this Court, when measures to realise the dues, practically by way of execution are taken and canvass the alleged illegality of the original orders. It will not be appropriate on the facts of this case, at this juncture, for this Court to take note of the present grievance of the petitioner against the original orders and issue the highly prerogative writ sought for, the issuance of which is at the discretion of this Court. The petitioner could as well give vent to his grievance in this behalf before the courts at Bombay and seek redress and relief, if there is time enough for him to do so. As the matter stands, the process under Central Act 1 of 1890 has been resorted to purely as a measure in execution and I do not feel called upon to go into the legality or otherwise of the very levy of penalties, in the present writ petition as coveted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view, this writ petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (12) TMI 154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ked out. The State feels aggrieved by these observations. They have brought this revision before us. Under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner acting for the State Government may prefer a revision against an order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has decided a question of law erroneously or has failed to decide a question of law which it has got to decide. In this case, the objection by the State Government is not to the order of the Tribunal. Indeed, there can be no objection to the order passed by the Tribunal since it merely confirmed the earlier order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was appealed against by the assessee before the Tribunal. What the State Government wants us to do is to interfere with certain observations made by the Tribunal. These observations cannot really be regarded as an adverse order against the State Government. The revision does not lie. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 153 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by him by agriculture, horticulture or otherwise. We have already referred to the definition of dealer in the Act. The inclusive portion found in the Kerala Act and which was the subject-matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner v. Palampadam Plantations Ltd. 1969 24 STC 231 (SC) is conspicuously absent in the Tamil Nadu Act. Consequently, we hold that the said decision of the Supreme Court does not help the assessee in this case. Mr. Srinivasan then referred to the decisions in Kuttirayin and Co. v. State of Kerala 1976 38 STC 282 and Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Sree Shanmuga Estate 1979 43 STC 226. We do not derive any support from these cases on the question arising for decision in this case. In the circumstances, we hold that the timber cut from the land of the assessee and sold by the assessee is liable to sales tax. We therefore dismiss the tax revision case. The department will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 250.
-
1981 (12) TMI 152 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d no valid or legal order of cancellation or suspension could have been validly made against the erring dealer. It is common ground that no proceedings have been held by the respondent by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no adjudication has been made on the materials if any collected in such proceedings. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly bad in law and void on that count also. 9.. In that view of the matter, we do not think it is necessary for us to go into the larger contention which has been urged as contention No. (3) on behalf of the petitioner-firm. 10.. The result is that this petition should be allowed and we issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the respondent dated 5th May, 1979, annexure A/3 to the petition, cancelling the recognition certificate of the petitioner-firm is purported exercise of his power under section 35(2)(b) of the Gujarat Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.
-
1981 (12) TMI 151 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respect of coconut oil and cake sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated only at 1 per cent of the sale price. This notification is still in force. Admittedly the petitioners come within the scope of S.R.O. No. 117/66. By the impugned notices the petitioners are called upon to pay the additional tax imposed under section 2 of Act 20 of 1978 in respect of inter-State sales. This is manifestly incorrect. Reliance by the respondent on section 8(2A) of the Central Act for this purpose is totally misconceived. The respondent has, in the first place, no power to enhance the tax leviable under section 8 of the Central Act. In the second place the additional tax levied under Act 20 of 1978 has no application whatever to the provisions of section 8 of the Central Act. For both these reasons exhibits P2 to P11 are made without jurisdiction and they are accordingly declared to be void. The O.P. is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1981 (12) TMI 150 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... make such a provision cannot be doubted. It is true the provision in section 24(3) is very stringent but the legislature has got the power to enact such a provision for the effective recovery of the tax assessed. Section 24(3) is therefore quite valid and enforceable. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner is, however, given liberty to approach the revisional authority under section 33. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that any revision filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes now will be out of time. It cannot be disputed that the time taken by the petitioner for prosecuting the writ petition should have to be excluded. Even if there is any delay the petitioner can move the Deputy Commissioner for condonation of the delay and the Deputy Commissioner will consider the question of condonation of the delay, if any, in filing the revision sympathetically after taking into account the bona fides of the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 149 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arly go to support the finding of the Tribunal that lime, especially hydraulic lime, is used as a cementing material in the building construction industry, and that it is an agent which, when mixed with other substances, gives the same service as portland cement. Lime, therefore, is a chemical which is an intermediate product used to obtain the end-product which is used in the construction industry. It is, therefore, a chemical within the meaning of entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, on the basis of the decision in Gujarat Distributors case 1975 35 STC 116. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in taking the view that merta lime, sojat lime and gotan lime are covered by entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Act. The question referred for our opinion is, therefore, answered accordingly, that is to say, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (12) TMI 148 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s as those of a bar. In our opinion, it is merely begging the question. The crux of the problem, as we have stated above, is whether entry 27 is restrictive or exhaustive, and secondly whether in the said entry as a whole or in the specified items we get any glimpse of the legislative intent that the specified items were to be interpreted narrowly and given a restricted meaning. On both these questions, the Division Bench in Super Diamond Tools case 1980 46 STC 129 has held otherwise. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the contention of the assesseecompany that the goods in question, namely, copper strips, were not entitled to be included within entry 27 of Schedule II, Part A, and taxed accordingly. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee-company and against the revenue. The State shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (12) TMI 147 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in section 2(26) did not arise for consideration in that case. The court there really considered an altogether different question upon which herein we have chosen not to express any opinion, namely, whether the separation of ash from kolshi by the sieving process is a manufacture within the meaning of the said term as defined in the Act. We do not think, therefore, that the decision in Deoki Nandan Pandey s case 1980 45 STC 145 can be of any assistance. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction in respect of the sales of ash from its turnover of sales under section 7(ii) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1) Not required to be answered in view of the answer to question No. (2). Question No. (2) In the negative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to the costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (12) TMI 146 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ime limited on account of its bona fide though wrong belief as regards the continued validity of the permission or on account of its bona fide misunderstanding of the provisions of rule 23A. May be, as earlier pointed out, the said finding was recorded while considering the question of partial remittance of penalty. However, it is not possible to confine the finding merely to the aspect of remission of penalty. It is equally applicable, logically and legally, on the aspect whether the penalty is imposable for the Tribunal to have reached the conclusion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty in the sum fixed by it was leviable on the assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1) Not answered. Question No. (2) In the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There shall be no order as to the costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (12) TMI 145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he revising authority in each of these cases by which it has refused the stay of reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the order of remand is, therefore, not sustainable. It deserves to be and is set aside. The revising authority will consider the applicant s prayer for stay of proceedings afresh in accordance with law. It may be observed that the proceedings in consequence of the orders of remand have remained stayed under orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in spite of the best endeavour of the applicant, the main cases wherein the order of remand is challenged could not be heard so far on account of the absence of the appropriate Bench of the Tribunal which has since replaced the revising authority. It is expected that those revisions (now pending as appeals) themselves would be disposed of at an early date by the appropriately constituted authority. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (12) TMI 144 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st interact in unison upon or with each other by application of force withthe end in view of doing some specific activity or producing some specific result. The meaning assigned to the word machinery in the dictionary as well as in the judicial decisions cited above makes it clear that an article to be machinery must either be a completed machine or a number of completed machines, or parts or members of a machine which, when they are assembled, form a complete machine. In the instant case, therefore, the articles, in question, which are found to be parts of the plant which consists of a processing unit, cannot but be treated as machinery. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in arriving at the decision that it reached. In view of the foregoing discussion, the question referred for our opinion is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to the costs of the reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
