-
1982 (6) TMI 253
... ... ... ... ..... 637/- cannot be considered to be small. Secondly, the grounds of detention disclose that the allegation is the only one of having smuggled goods of the total value of ₹ 2,49,637/- and not item-wise. The question of proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority cannot be considered by bisecting the order as being good in part and bad in part. In any event, in this case, as pointed out above, application of mind by the Detaining Authority as regards the goods valued at ₹ 1,40,000/- which was more than hal....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 252
... ... ... ... ..... to the person from whom the sample was taken to make such arrangements as he might like to challenge the report of the Public Analyst, for example, by making a request to the Magistrate to send the other sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Where the effect of non-compliance with the rule was such as to wholly deprive the right of the person to challenge the Public Analyst's Report by obtaining the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, there might be just cause for compla....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 251
... ... ... ... ..... rubber after deducting milling waste or that assessment has been made on that basis. The mention of milling waste separately in the appendices submitted by them by itself does not carry the petitioner any further. A case of discrimination supported by relevant materials has not been made out. However, I have to record the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Rubber Board to the effect that in regards to the assessments made for some periods on Dunlop India Limited, audit objections have been raised and ....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 250
... ... ... ... ..... ture of goods falling under Item 68 or otherwise. As the hard coke in question is used in the manufacture of coke oven gas and the same is used in the manufacture of fertilizers in the same factory, that Notification fully covered the position. The Assistant Collector had accepted that position and had passed suitable orders on that basis. It was not, therefore, open to the Additional Collector to reopen that position on the basis of the orders as have been passed. They accordingly pleaded that the orders of the Additional....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 249
... ... ... ... ..... s. 17. In conclusion, the Government direct that in respect of the consignments specifically covered in paras 13 to 16 above, the goods be reassessed as stainless steel strips under Item No. 63 (20A) ICT read with notification No. 24-Cus., dated 1-3-73 and consequential refund due be granted to the petitioners. 18. The Government further direct that the goods comprised in all or any of the remaining consignments covered by these proceedings be also re-assessed as stainless steel strips with consequential relief if, on a sc....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 248
... ... ... ... ..... ghing 300 Grams (the minimum quantity limited to a goldsmith), his brother Radhagovinda a certified goldsmith, has however, admitted that the gold was sent by him. The latter s records showed entries for remaking old ornaments but their weight did not tally with the gold seized. The contravention of Section 8(1) and 42 of Gold (Control) Act for which the orders of confiscation and penalty have been passed, have therefore been clearly established. 3. However considering that the gold was acid gold and records of the certifi....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 247
... ... ... ... ..... of an endorsement on their application about the filing of R.T. 12 that no compliance was required as they were not a factory within the meaning of Factories Act. They therefore pleaded that even without going into the question as to whether the two firms were connected or separate, the orders of the Additional Collector should be set aside as he has not contested the finding that none of these were factories within the meaning of the Factories Act and therefore, their production was not covered by Item 68 of the C.E.T. 5........ + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 246
... ... ... ... ..... the notification effecting the amendment is without the authority of law. 6.. In fact, there is no challenge made to the validity of the amendment of rule 25A of the Rules, though the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the argument that the notification amending the rule was bad inasmuch as it affected the freedom of the petitioners to carry on their trade. That argument, I should necessarily reject, because the amendment does not amount to any prohibition imposed on the petitioners to carry on the trade. It only....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 245
... ... ... ... ..... d to in the document will represent the turnover of the assessee s business. But in the matter of levy of penalty the fact that the assessee is not able to explain certain documents will not ipso facto lead to the fact that the assessee has wilfully suppressed the turnover. As has been held by this Court in Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 STC 121 (FB) in order that penalty may be imposed, it must be possible first to come to the conclusion that there was actually a turnover and further that the turnov....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 244
... ... ... ... ..... has taken the view that the assessee has sold the mirror as an accessory to the cycle or as its spare part, and therefore, it should be brought under the entry accessory to cycle and not under the entry glass and glassware including sheet glass and plate glass, mirror, laboratory glassware, etc. Admittedly, the assessee is not a dealer in glassware and he is only a dealer in cycles. For persons who require a mirror to be fitted into cycles, the mirror is given as a spare part for the cycle or as an accessory. Therefore, as....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 243
... ... ... ... ..... form has been statutorily prescribed, which has also specified the documents to be annexed and filed. Such word document as mentioned in form A, in my view, on the definition of the same, may also include the certified copy of the order moved against and as such, on the views as expressed earlier, I hold that an assessee willing to annex the certified copy would be entitled to claim the credit for the days required by him to obtain the same, subject of course to the other provisions of the Limitation Act. For the views as ....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 242
... ... ... ... ..... ed to be a holiday and the petitioner was supposed to attend the office of the Assessing Authority on that date. According to the notice, the assessee had to prove the genuineness of the transactions in favour of M/s. Om Parkash and Sons and M/s. Brij Bhushan Jai Gopal and had further to explain the entries in the diary seized from Shri Ram Singh, father of the proprietor of the assessee-firm. The assessee did require some time to prove all the facts. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the c....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 241
... ... ... ... ..... o the petitioner. Arjan Radio House v. Assessing Authority (Excise and Taxation Officer) Gurdaspur 1973 31 STC 49 is an authority regarding the non-publication of the cancellation of the registration certificate in the official Gazette. In such a situation, if the petitioner-firm continues to transact with the Amritsar firm, the sales made by it to the said firm, would not be chargeable to sales tax, the second part of the referred question is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the petitioner and agai....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 240
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... e circumstances mentioned above is not sufficient to show that voice is that of the Government or hands are of the Government or that the company is an agent or surrogate of the State, in fact owned by the State, in truth controlled by the State and in effect an incarnation of the State . It is no more than a Government company under the company law and not a limb of Government. In this view, I uphold the contention of the first respondent company that it is not an. instrumentality of the State within t....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 239
Powers of Central Government to authorise with permission of High Court to takeover management or control of industrial undertaking
-
1982 (6) TMI 238
Directors – Power of, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398, Power of Tribunal on application under sections 397 and 398
-
1982 (6) TMI 218
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... ese are our reasons for the following order which was passed on 25th May, 1982 For the reasons to be recorded later, leave under rules 147 and 148 of the Bombay High Court Rules granted to the respondents, to take out a N/M in terms of the draft N/M submitted to the court. N/M returnable on June 14, 1982. Mr. Kapadia waives service of the N/M. In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b) of the N/M on the following conditions (1)Shares mentioned....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 217
Accounts - To be kept by company ... ... ... ... ..... are directed further to give inspection of all the documents referred to and relied upon by them in their company petition to respondents Nos. 2 to 8. The inspection will be given from day to day forthwith. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 to file their affidavit in reply in Company Petition No. 714 of 1981, within 6 weeks from today. No further adjournments will be granted for this purpose. This time is given on the assumption that inspection will be offered by the petitioners from day to day as p....... + More
-
1982 (6) TMI 216
Meetings and proceedings – Explanatory statement to be annexed to notice, Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served, Certain perosns not to be appointed as managing director
-
1982 (6) TMI 215
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... shareholder of a company in the case of Charanjit Lal Chaudhari v. Union of India 1951 21 Comp. Cas. 33 (SC), and in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT 1955 25 Comp. Cas. 1 27 ITR 1 (SC), and the framing of the suit in the present case we are of the opinion that the present appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party and, as such, dismissal of its application to be joined as party by the learned trial judge was not irregular or invalid. The other contentions impeaching the validity....... + More
