|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 265 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 409 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e an ad valorem basis under section 5 1 of the Act. We may add that the decision in Srunguri Lakshmi Narayana Rao & Ors. v. Revenue Divisional officer, Kakinada & Ors., A.I.R. 1968 Andhra Pradesh, 348 M. Ramachandran & Ors. v. State of Madras represented by the Collector, Coimbatore, 87 Law Weekly Madras 791 Satya Charan Sur's case (supra), Balakrishnan Nambiyar & Ors., v. Kanakathidathil Madhavan & Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Kerala 40 and Ghouse Saheb v. Sharifa Bi & Ors., A.I.R. 1977 Karnataka 181 have taken the came view as we have taken. The decisions in Hirji Virji Jangbari's case (supra), Kanwar Jagat Bahadur Singh v. The Punjab State, A.I.R. 1957 Punjab 32. Crown's case (supra) and Mangal Sen v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 Delhi 44 are not approved by us. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The appellants are granted three months' time to pay the deficit court fee on the memorandum of appeal.
-
1986 (9) TMI 408 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on or the other, the accused failed to take advantage of the order for several months. Probably for that reason, the prosecuting agency did not move in the matter and seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the order had lapsed with the filing of the chargesheet. The question is should we now send the matter down to the High Court to give an opportunity to the prosecution to move that court for cancellation of bail? Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, the long lapse of time since the original order for bail was made, the consequent change in circumstances and situation, and the directions that we have now given for the expeditious disposal of the case, we do not think that we will be justified in exercising our discretion to interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution in these matters at this stage. The special leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Nothing that we have said is to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
-
1986 (9) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Advisory Board. Their recommendations were also duly considered by the State Government. In the premises there is no substance in the grievance that the procedural safeguards had not been followed. It further appears to us that there was rational subjective satisfaction arrived at bona fide on the basis of the materials available to the detaining authority and the materials had rational nexus with the purpose and object of the detention as contemplated by the Act. Judged by the standards laid down by various decisions mentioned hereinbefore and in view of the fact that procedural safeguards had been observed, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the challenge made in the writ petition. We are further of the opinion that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition before it. Special leave application from the said decision therefore must fail and the writ petition filed in this Court also fails for the reasons indicated before. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ain here. Preventive detention is a necessary evil in the modern restless society. But simply because it is an evil, it cannot be so interpreted as to be inoperative in any practical manner. Judged by all relevant standards, the impugned order of detention in the case of the petitioner cannot be said to be either illegal or beyond the authority of law. Before we conclude we must point out that another point was taken that in the order there was no mention of the period of detention. There could not be an indefinite detention. The State Government has clearly notified the period of detention of the petitioner and indicated that he should be in detention till 6th December, 1986. This appears at Annexure I at page 52 of the Paper Book of Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1986. The said order was passed under section 22 of the said Act by the State Government. In the premises the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. The Criminal Appeal is also dismissed. Petition and Appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or on the construction of the provisions of section 15A of the said Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment under appeal. In the premises it must be held that all licensees created by landlords or by the tenant before 1st February, 1973 and who were in actual occupation of a premises which was not less than a room as licensee on 1st February, 1973 would be the licensees of the landlord or tenant and whether there be any term in the original agreement for tenancy permitting creation of such tenancy ar licences or not they would become tenant and enjoy the rights granted under the Act specially those mentioned in section 14(2) of the Act. In the premises, in the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned hereinbefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned single judge of the High Court of Bombay are set aside. In the facts of this case, however, we direct that the parties shall . bear and pay their own costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he company, as revealed by the production figures and the number of employees engaged in the two sections. There can be, no possibility of doubt that the spinning section of the undertaking was by far the more important activity of the company and with its closure it may legitimately be said that the major and substantial activity of the textile undertaking came to an end. In our opinion that was sufficient to constitute closure of the textile under taking. The circumstance that an insubstantial part of the undertaking continued to be run could not militate against the conclusion that the undertaking had in substance closed down. In this view, we think that the circumstance that the hosiery section of the undertaking did not close down cannot lead to the conclusion that the textile undertaking as such had in substance closed down for the purposes of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Sick Textile Undertaking (Taking Over of Management) Act. In the result the writ petition is dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 403 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... g of the Mil and that they were not used in connection with the Undertaking, at any rate from 1966. There is no substance in the submission. There is no dispute that the property is the property of the Textile Undertaking. Once it is found to be the property of the Textile Undertaking there is no escape from the provisions of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(3) of the 'Sick Textile Undertakings' (Taking Over of Management) Act. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 402 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Ginning and Pressing Factory was part and parcel of the Textile Undertaking, it is not necessary for us to go into the broader question whether under Section 4(3) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, even a separate and distinct establishment may be taken over as "property, in the ownership, possession, power or control of the Textile Company". Textile Company itself in defined as the company specified in the third column of the First Schedule as owning the Testing Undertaking specified in the corresponding entry in the second column of that Schedule. Section 4(3) appears to be wide enough to suggest that not only all assets of the Textile Company in relation to the 'Sick Textile Undertakings' but also all properties in the ownership of the Textile Company are to be considered as part of the 'Sick Textile Undertakings'. We do not wish to express any opinion on this question in this case. The Writ Petition is dismissed
-
1986 (9) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quot; was intended to convey that both canalised and non-canalised items would be covered within the ambit of the order. The position has been clarified by the letter dated 18th June, 1986 written by the respondent which appears at page 132 of the Paper Book. It has been mentioned that the holders of additional licence issued for 1978-79 would be entitled to import only those goods which are included in Appendix 6 Part 11 of AM 85-88. The fact that the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 23rd April, 1986 wrote a letter which is not in consonance with the subsequent direction would not in any way affect the position or create any estoppel. Nor can such a letter be used as an argument that that was the government's understanding of the matter. That is irrelevant. In the premises the interim order prayed for in these applications is refused. The applications are thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 400 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ication succeeds. The penalty imposed and the order directing the furnishing of security are set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to amend the registration certificate. The registration certificate shall be treated as amended with effect from 17th April, 1974. The respondent shall issue the declaration forms forthwith to the petitioner-firm in accordance with law. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. Let appropriate writs do issue accordingly. Security furnished to the extent of Rs. 5,000 (five thousand) with the Registrar Appellate Side is released. Registrar is directed to refund the said amount with accrued interest thereon after deducting the costs charges and expenses. Such refund shall be made within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of the operative part of this judgment be handed over to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. Application allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 399 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the aforesaid observations. 6.. In the instant case, we find that the condition as regards delivery referred to above makes it very clear that the delivery of the goods was complete at the loading station when the goods were delivered to the carrier. The Tribunal has found that the freight was deducted from the price in the bills and was paid by the buyer. In these circumstances, the freight could not be held to form part of the sale price. 7.. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is that in the circumstances of the case the railway freight in respect of goods sold by the assessee and paid by the purchaser would not form part of the sale price as defined by section 2(o) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and by section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 8.. The references are answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1986 (9) TMI 398 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he meaning of thereby it is clear that it means in consequence of that, also with reference to that, which is very wide enough to include the best judgment assessment which are nothing but has been passed in consequence of the concealment or because of that concealment. Thus by even applying this word thereby will include, in the cases of concealment, the avoidance of tax which would be the difference between the tax as returned and the tax as assessed. In view of the aforesaid findings, I am of the view that in the cases of concealment of turnover the liability to pay the penalty on a dealer would be even after the amendment the difference between the tax as returned and the tax as assessed. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Sales Tax Tribunal committed any error in recording a finding thereon. The question of law raised by the applicant is answered against the applicant and in favour of the department. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 397 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would be affecting the right of the other person and would amount to excessive exercise of a statutory power. No provision has been brought to our notice under the Act or the Rules by which a Commissioner can require a person to give an undertaking. Even if the Commissioner requires such an undertaking for the benefit of the persons whose goods are transported, the drastic law of seizure cannot be exercised where those persons do not intend to take the benefit offered to them. In that view of the matter, the notices in form VI-B issued by the officer-in-charge, Jamshola-ghat combined check gate, cannot be sustained. 8.. In conclusion, the notices vide annexures 1-B and 1-C in form VI-A being inconsistent with rule 28-B are quashed and the notices vide annexures 1 and 1-A in form VI-B having been issued in excess of the power vested under the statute are quashed. 9.. In the result, the writ application is allowed. No costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Writ application allowed
-
1986 (9) TMI 396 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the view that if it is shown that a patent mistake or error was committed by the Appellate Tribunal, it is open to it to correct the same. In O.P. No. 9382 of 1985-D, one of us, sitting in single, had occasion to state The second respondent-statutory authority has got all powers and duties to pass an effective, proper and valid order. If as a matter of fact exhibit P6 was rendered due to some misapprehension or mistake, as contended before me by the petitioners counsel, it is open to the petitioners to bring this fact before the second respondent himself by way of appropriate application, so that it can express its views thereon and if the petitioners plea is entitled to acceptance, render appropriate reliefs also. The second respondent, as a statutory authority, has got inherent powers to set right the mistake committed by it. We concur with the above observations. 5.. No interference is called for in these revisions. These two revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 395 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of 1985, the said Act cannot be held to be invalid. By changing the definition of the word sale the legislature has brought the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink where such supply or service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration within the compass of the definition of the word sale . Whatever was the defect found by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases before the Forty-sixth Amendment, that has been cured. In Chittar Mal Narain Das v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1970 26 STC 344 (SC) the Honourable Supreme Court held that on account of the restriction imposed by the statute there was no sale and as such no tax was leviable. We are not concerned with the controversy involved in that case in the present petition. In the result the writ petition is dismissed under Chapter XXII, rule 2 of the Rules of Court. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 394 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tutory remedy is available to him by way of appeal or revision. The levy of penalty under section 7AA of the Act is also discretionary and the assessing authority while exercising its jurisdiction has refused to charge any penalty from the petitioner vide his order exhibit 2 to exhibit 4 dated 21st October, 1983. When no mistake apparent on the face of the record is alleged to exist, then that discretionary order cannot be revised by taking recourse to the provisions of section 17(1) read with section 17(3) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and the respondents are restrained from imposing any penalty or interest upon the petitioner under section 7AA and section 11B of the Act in pursuance of the notices exhibits 5 to 7 dated 28th July, 1985, and the notices exhibits 5 to 7 dated 28th July, 1985, are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 393 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e order of the Commissioner, since the petitioner expanded its business the sales tax authorities are now estopped under the law from taking a stand contrary to the one which is in the order also has no merit. The petitioner had never been assured that no tax would be chargeable from it even if it is payable under the law. The petitioner if thought that the order of the Commissioner was conclusive and the last word and on that basis regulated its business activities, it is the petitioner which has to thank itself. There was neither any representation given nor could a business concern like the petitioner believe it to be so. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed under Chapter XXII, rule 2, of the Rules of the Court. The stay orders passed from time to time by this Court are vacated. The Sales Tax Officer will now be entitled to proceed with the assessment proceedings in respect of the years 1981-82 1982-83 and 1983-84. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 392 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egatived the right of the department by not permitting the appeal of the department to be decided. In view of this, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24th December, 1985 is liable to be set aside. It is held that the Tribunal was wrong in not deciding the appeal of the department which has separate right granted under the statute and the said order, therefore, suffers from that illegality. However, it shall be open for the parties to urge before the Tribunal the impact of the decision which has been given in the earlier dealer s appeal and whether the questions involved in the earlier appeal by the dealer and the present appeal by the department are identical or separate. The Tribunal should decide afresh the appeal of the department in accordance with law. In view of this, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24th December, 1985 is set aside and the case is sent back for decision afresh by the Tribunal and this revision is allowed. Costs on parties. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 391 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... venience to ordinary people. Governments are run on public funds and if large amounts all over the country are held up during the pendency of litigations, it becomes difficult for the Governments to run and it becomes oppressive to the people. Governments expenditures cannot be made on bank guarantees or securities. In that view of the matter as we said before, if we may venture to suggest for consideration by our learned brethren that this Court should refrain from passing any interim orders staying the realisations of indirect taxes or passing such orders which have the effect of non-realisation of indirect taxes. This will be healthy for the economy of the country and for the courts. 5.. In the light of the aforesaid authoritative enunciation, what their Lordships have suggested to their learned brethren is obviously binding and mandatory on the High Courts. We are unable to find any merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (9) TMI 390 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In the absence of any material, the authorities below committed error in rejecting the case of the dealer. There is nothing on the record to show that the dealer has done any business in the year in question. If it was a case of estimation of the turnover, then a previous year and a subsequent year may be relevant consideration. In the present case the question is whether the dealer has done any business in this year or not. In the absence of any material in the year in question the assumption only on the basis of a survey in the preceding year, cannot be a good ground. In view of this, the revision is allowed and it is held that the authorities below committed error in assessing the dealer only on the basis of the material found in the preceding year which has no relevance for the year in question. The revision is accordingly allowed and the case is sent back for passing the order before the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Petition allowed.
........
|
