|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 385 Records
-
1991 (1) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6 of 1984 (Prakash Roadlines (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka) we have already held that the levy of penalty is not an automatic imposition for the failure to comply with the requirements of section 28-A and the levy is discretionary and the power created by subsection (4) will have to be read in the background of the constitutional requirements. In the instant case the Check-post Officer has not given any reason as to why the maximum penalty has to be levied, while the Commissioner has imputed motive to the appellant for which there is no basis. The Commissioner should have held an independent investigation about the allegations made by the appellant that the documents produced by him were not considered by the Check-post Officer especially in the background of the finding given by the appellate authority against the Check-post Officer. In these circumstances, we are constrained to allow the appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 425 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er has sought to make up an excuse for the stocks found by the inspection to be outside the regular accounts. Further there was no explanation at the time of inspection as to the unaccounted stock of jaggery. The explanation now adduced that it had just arrived on the date of inspection for being sold on commission basis is clearly an afterthought which the appellate authority failed to see for what it is. This is nothing but purely a suspicious approach and the reversal is the result of mere conjecture and cannot be a basis to invoke section 22A of the Act. Therefore, on the question of turnovers, we restore the order of the appellate authority. The levy of penalty by the Commissioner is the result of his order under section 22A on merits regarding jaggery, which we have set aside. Consequently the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,387 by the Commissioner has to be set aside. Accordingly it is set aside. In the result this appeal is allowed as stated above. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 424 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... course under section 28-A and the authority will have to consider the explanation offered by the person concerned for the non-production of the documents. Section 28-A(4) itself creates a discretionary power and at the same time provides for an opportunity to the person to show cause against the levy of penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of section 28-A(2). Further, the quantum of penalty need not be the maximum in all cases. 3.. In the instant case the order of the Joint Commissioner suffers from all these infirmities. He has imposed the penalty solely on the ground that the documents are produced subsequently and that the explanation of the appellant cannot be considered and then proceeded to affirm the order of the original authority imposing the maximum penalty. We are of the view that this order of the Joint Commissioner cannot be sustained having regard to the scheme and object of section 28-A(5) of the Act. 4.. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 423 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eme Court and the Bench decisions of this Court, we are of the view, that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that on a mere change of opinion, the assessing authority cannot reopen the original assessment. In this connection, we would also state that the wide observations contained in the Bench decision of this Court in Sankaran Nair v. State of Kerala 1974 33 STC 32 at pages 35 and 36, to the effect that in construing section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the principles laid down under the Income-tax Act in construing section 147 of the said Act must apply, was more in the nature of obiter . We are also of the view that the observations were made per incuriam. The earlier binding decisions of the Supreme Court and the Bench decisions of this Court were not adverted to, in making the said observations in paragraph 7 of the judgment. We set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, dated January 29, 1990. The tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 422 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by submitting that by amended provisions the power to grant stay is conferred on the Tribunal in case of appeals filed against the orders made under section 21, i.e., in case of first appeals and taken away the powers to grant stay in case of second appeals arising from the orders made under section 20 of the Act, and as such there is nothing to say that the amended provisions in question were violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our view, this submission of the learned Government Advocate merits acceptance. 15.. Thus having considered carefully all aspects of the matter, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned single Judge. Consequently these appeals are entitled to succeed. Therefore, in the result, for the reasons stated and discussion made above, these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders passed by the learned single Judge in all these appeals are set aside and the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Writ appeals allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 421 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ales Tax) Act, 1941, which is a specified State Act under the aforesaid 1987 Act. Since reported in 1991 82 STC 157 (Cal.) 10.. The position being as above, we are of the opinion that the present application being one exclusively concerning a tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, does not stand transferred to the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal set up under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, for disposal in terms of section 15(1) of the said 1987 Act. In other words, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction, powers or authority to entertain this application for disposal or to dispose of the same. Accordingly, the records of this case, namely, the records of C.O. 5674(W) of 1983 of Appellate Side of the High Court at Calcutta, be returned to the same court. A copy of this order be forwarded along with the said records. For the purpose of statistics, RN-360(T) of 1990 stands hereby disposed of. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree.
-
1991 (1) TMI 420 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y to make any order on the I.A. Hence, it is dismissed. 8.. An application is made in W.P. Nos. 5603 to 5605 of 1989 by the petitioners raising additional ground alleging that M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Industry, is not established in an industrially backward area, and still it has got benefit of the notification, annexure C. It would be unnecessary to consider this additional ground since the writ petitions are dismissed. 9.. This Court had granted stay of recovery of tax payable by the petitioners on their turnovers during the pendency of the writ petitions. See note at page 343 supra.-Ed. In some cases an interim prayer was made directing the State not to collect excess of 4 per cent. In some cases the prayer was not to collect the entire tax payable on the turnover. 10.. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, the petitioners are. directed to pay the difference of tax in the light of the interim order made in the respective writ petition. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 419 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts sweep timber in cut or manufactured form of all sizes and shapes, etc. There can be no doubt that packing shooks would fall within this description. 10.. The legislative practice can be inferred from the amendment made to the above serial No. 45 in the year 1989 when the Legislature specifically excluded casuarina, eucalyptus, etc., from the concept of timber. If packing shooks are to be excluded from the concept of timber of all sizes and shapes in cut or manufactured form, Legislature would have certainly clarified by excluding them. The word all found in serial No. 45 will have to be given its importance and due meaning. In these circumstances, I cannot agree with the contention of the learned Government Pleader. 11.. Consequently, the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. However, W.P. No. 3355 of 1987 has to be dismissed as unnecessary. It is accordingly dismissed. All other writ petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 418 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d on facts. This is a pure finding of fact. No error of law is discernible in the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We questioned the learned Government Pleader to point out whether there is any definite finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there was an attempt at evasion of tax on the goods under transport. Counsel could not point out any finding on that score by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In fact, even the primary authority has not entered a definite finding that there was any attempt to evade payment of tax. What he has stated, is that there is no evidence to prove that the two transports were as per the rules and so the transports were with intention to evade tax. The conclusion arrived at, does not logically accord with the facts stated by the Intelligence Officer. There is no error of law in the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We decline to interfere in revision. The revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 417 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... food in its wider sense-everything that goes into the preparation of food proper as understood in the narrow sense, i.e., food eaten for purposes of nutrition or nourishment, to make it palatable and digestable. The popular meaning of the word food is in its wider sense and it is in that sense the word food is understood in common parlance. Our decision, in our opinion, accords with the meaning of the term in common parlance and popular sense. 31.. In the result, for the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question of law raised by the assessee in the affirmative and against him and in favour of the Revenue. We affirm the order made by the assessing authority holding that the turnover of the sales of goods in question would fall under entry 98 of the Second Schedule to the Act and would be exigible to tax at the rate of 8 per cent, maintained by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. 32.. We dismiss the revision petitions with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 416 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anted and also for reasons to be given in support of an order extending time for assessment. It has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer 1979 44 STC 456 that the assessments which have become time barred cannot be bestowed a new lease of life by extension for making assessment order except by giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All proceedings taken without opportunity and recording of reasons are invalid. Sri Bhansali, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended that since this point had not been raised in the appeal, the same cannot be gone into and decided in favour of the assessee. I do not agree with this submission. The objection goes to the root of the matter and simply because it was not raised earlier, it cannot come in the way of the assessee from challenging before this Court. Admittedly, the assessment proceedings, otherwise had become final. The revisions fails and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 415 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iginal petitions are not maintainable. However, if the assessee files revisions from the provisional assessment orders within 30 days from today before the appropriate authority, the said revisions shall be disposed of on the merits, as if they are filed within time. The assessee is free to pursue exhibit P9 appeal. It is open to the revisional and appellate authorities to interpret the relevant notifications and dispose of the revisions and appeal in accordance with law. 11.. Before concluding, we would only highlight the fact that the provisional assessments are for varying months in 1989-90, and now that the year is over, it is time for making the final assessment itself. The Revenue would do well to consider that aspect and expedite the final assessment for the year itself being effected. So also the Revenue would do well to see that the appeal, exhibit P9, for the year 1987-88 is disposed of expeditiously. The writ appeals are disposed of as above. Writ appeals allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 414 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re is no equity in the taxing statute, the rule of interpretation that in the matter of competing interests, a citizen should be given the benefit as against the State is not excluded. The same idea is conveyed when it is said that if an article is to be taxed and the said article may fall within two entries, the entry which is more beneficial to the assessee will have to be accepted as applicable to the article in question. Following the aforesaid principle I am of the view that Sintex water drums would fall within entry 118 of Second Schedule and the view expressed by the respondent-Commissioner to the contra is not acceptable. 5. It may also be noted here that by Act No. 27 of 1985 with effect from August 1, 1985, entry 118(iii) was substituted to include Polythene drums within the purview of entry 118, which indicates the legislative intention quite clearly. 6.. For the above reasons, these writ petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 413 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce in this context. A Bench of this Court in S.T.R.P. Nos. 9 to 11 of the 1975 decided on 28th March, 1978 had assumed that leco was charcoal. The matter was remanded by the Division Bench only to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner therein had sold the quantity of leco in question for domestic use so as to enable him to claim the exemption under item 29 of the Fifth Schedule. The assumptions made by the Division Bench which is the foundation for the aforesaid decision will have to be respected. If the Legislature thinks otherwise the law will have to be amended to clarify the matter. I do not think that I can ignore the above decision and venture upon an investigation again to see whether leco is coal or charcoal. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision, leco will have to be held as charcoal and if so the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to succeed. 4.. Consequently, all these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 412 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... admit the appeal unless it be accompanied by the deposit of the assessed tax as required by the amended proviso to section 22(1) of the Act overlooks the fact of existence of the old law for the purpose of supporting the pre-existing right and really amounts to begging the question. The new proviso is wholly inapplicable in such a situation and the jurisdiction of the authority has to be exercised under the old law which so continues to exist. 7.. Since we are of the opinion that the law as it stood prior to the amendment by Act 76 of 1986 continued to govern the case of the assessee/ respondent, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly remanded the case back to the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner with a direction to condone the delay and take the appeal in file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There is no merit in this revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 411 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... very, and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for price. Here, admittedly, the design is supplied by the customer. What the petitioner doing is that he mounts the design on a metal block manufactured to the specification and sells it. The selling price includes the cost of the block and his labour which is not divisible. Hence metal block-making and selling to a customer is nothing but a contract of sale. It also satisfies the requisites of sale recognised under the Sale of Goods Act. The essential requisites of sale is the transfer of the absolute or general property in a thing for a price in money. There is no reason to depart from the conclusion arrived at in the earlier decision of this Court. In view of the discussions made above, we are constrained to hold question Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 410 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e and another point in the same State and the transfer of invoices, payment of freight charges from Cochin to Thiruppur are of no avail. The above finding is conclusive except the mention about the existence of certain contract, as reflected in the letter written by the Cotton Corporation of India to the assessee. For the said reason, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate if there is any evidence to show that there had been any contract of sale independent of the noticed movement of the goods as above. In spite of opportunity given to him, he has not been able to bring to our notice any such material for the inference that there has been some sort of contract of sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It shall, therefore, be a futile exercise, as we have observed above, to go any further to examine the case. There is no merit in these revision petitions. Accordingly, these tax case revisions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 409 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in these cases is really imaginary. The assessment order made in these cases are of extremely poor quality. The Tribunal in view of these findings affirmed the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). A perusal of these observations will go to show that the matter could have been decided by the Sales Tax Tribunal or by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) because the matter was available before these two authorities and there was no need to remand the case to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment. Therefore in view of these facts the order of remand passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, is liable to be set aside and the case must go back to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench I, for deciding it afresh on merits. The revision is allowed. The order of remand dated August 29, 1987, is set aside and the case is remanded to Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench I, for deciding it afresh on merits. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (1) TMI 408 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there is no reason to give restricted meaning to the definition of term business . 8.. From the judgment of the Tribunal and the record of the reference it is evident that the dealer though engaged in the activity of publication of newspaper called Lokraj does purchase taxable goods. In this view of the matter if the business activity in respect of the articles other than goods as defined in the Act is not included, while considering other provisions of the Act, it would open royal roads for escaping tax. Therefore it is evident that the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner would lead to absurdity. Such absurd interpretation can never be accepted. 9.. No infirmity in the reasoning adopted and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is pointed out to us. 10.. The question is answered in the affirmative as indicated in para 3 hereinabove. The reference stands answered accordingly, with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (1) TMI 407 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... de for health care, a person who has not been making a watertight packing cannot be heard to say that because his packing is not watertight, therefore, his product will not be subjected to tax under entry 103. All that the law required to attract entry 103 rate of tax at the relevant time was to see whether the food product was sold in packets or not. It is not in dispute in the instant proceedings that the appalam was sold by the petitioner in packets. Thus packing is admitted. Such a packing is watertight or not is not relevant for the realisation of tax. However, for any tax after October 10, 1979, the products were not required to be sold in tins, cans, bottles or packings for the purpose of the rate of tax under entry 103. We find therefore no error committed by the assessing authorities in imposing tax at the rate as under entry 103 of the First Schedule to the Act. The two revision petitions carry no merit. Accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed
........
|
