|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 528
... ...
... ... ..... operation of the Employees Provident Funds Act. Since there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence and since their evidence gets amply corroborated by the fact of acceptance of ₹ 1,000/- by the appellant subsequently on April 2, 1984, as testified by a number of witnesses including P.Ws. 3 and 4 it is manifest that the appellant obtained the money pursuant to the demand earlier made by him by abusing his position as a public servant. The conviction of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Act is also therefore well merited. On the conclusions as above we uphold the convictions recorded against the appellant. Since the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six month and a fine of ₹ 2,000/- imposed upon the appellant for each of the above convictions errs on the side of leniency, no interference in respect thereof is called for. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, shall now surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence.
-
1997 (1) TMI 527
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 526
... ...
... ... ..... 3) or elsewhere cannot attract the higher duty on the goods presently under consideration. The Explanation to the notification sic Section 3(1) is applicable only where goods of exactly the same description attract different rates of duty. See, in this connection, the decisions on analogous provision in Collector of Customs v. Western India Plywood Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 1989 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 515 and Collector of Customs v. Hansur Plywood Works, 1989 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 520. We, therefore, reject this contention." (Emphasis supplied.) 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was in error and that the judgment and order under appeal must be set aside. 12. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. 13. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 525
... ...
... ... ..... ench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in view of such declaration of the said deed of gifts as invalid, no claim of title on the basis of the said deed of gift or family settlement can be made. In our view, such decision of the division Bench is Justified since the said earlier decision in declaring the deeds of gift as invalid, is binding between the parties. There is no occasion to consider the principle of estoppel since considered by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case for holding the said transfers as valid, in view of the earlier adjudication on the validity of the said deeds in the previous suit between the parties. The law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter party judgment binds the party if the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. This appeal therefore fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 524
... ...
... ... ..... Nos. 79/89, 491 /89 and 6042/94 respectively. These appeals were heard together and disposed of by the Supreme Court by a common judgment dated 17.12.1996 .. The Supreme Court took the view that both under the old Tariff and the new Tariff to the effect that computer and software are distinct and separate and software cannot be regarded as part of the computer and, therefore, the value of software even if sold along with the Computer, cannot form part of the assessable value of the computer for the purpose of excise duty. The Supreme Court set aside the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal. 4. Applying the view taken by the Supreme Court to the facts of the case, we hold that value of software sold by the appellant to customers, either along with the computer or separately, cannot be included in the assessable value of computer. Therefore, the impugned orders as well as the demand confirmed therein are set aside. Appeal is allowed, Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.
-
1997 (1) TMI 523
... ...
... ... ..... find no grounds. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 522
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Delay condoned. Special leave granted.
-
1997 (1) TMI 521
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 520
Society to redevelop the property ... ... ... ... ..... sts of weaker sections and further induction of weaker sections by nomination or women who do not become members of the society is unconstitutional. The election of nomination of the weaker sections to the Committee of Management is as per the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. If any society consists solely of those segments and elected Committee of Management consists of them, the question of nomination to represent them as that segment again would not arise. In the absence of elected members being there in the Committee, necessarily, the Government have the power to nominate the unfilled membership of the Committee. Thus considered, we are of the view that the provisions of the Act and rules are consistent with the policy and object of the Constitution and, therefore, the High Court was wholly incorrect in declaring the aforesaid provision to be ultra vires the Constitution. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 519
... ...
... ... ..... . (6) So far as rectified spirit meant for being supplied to or utilised for potable purposes is concerned, it shall be under the exclusive control of the States from the moment it is cleared/removed for that purpose from the distillery - apart from other powers referred to above. (7) The power to permit the establishment of any industry engaged in the manufacture of potable liquors including I.M.F.Ls., beer, country liquor and other intoxicating drinks is exclusively vested in the States. The power to prohibit and/or regulate the manufacture, production, sale, transport or consumption of such intoxication liquors is equally that of the States, as held in McDowell. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and clarifications. The show-cause notice issued by the Bihar Excise authorities to the writ petitioner shall be disposed of in the light of the law declared herein, after making necessary enquiry into relevant factual position, according to law. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 518
... ...
... ... ..... in the manner prescribed. (emphasis supplied) and not by any other manner. Learned counsel or so even the submission of learned counsel for revenue that the assessee has secured the certified copy of the assessment order on June 30, 1981 will not in any way improve his case. In other words, even if the above said thirty days period has to be computed from that date, viz., June 30, 1981, there is no delay at all, since on July 23, 1981 itself, the appeal has been filed. 11.. Further, we must also point out that section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 specifically provides that service must be in the manner prescribed, i.e., prescribed in rule 52(1) of the Rules. As already pointed out, there is no proper service as per rule 52(1) of the Rules. Therefore, there is no delay at all. In fact, the abovesaid M.P. No. 255 of 1981 is unnecessary, since there is no delay at all. 12.. For all the above reasons, this tax case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 517
Whether the arbitrator has no power to award interest in respect of pre reference period in the absence of the claimant having a right under the contract or a provision of substantive law, to get interest?
Held that:- As far as pre-reference interest is concerned, in view of the settled legal position, pre- reference interest could not be awarded for the period prior to coming into force of the Interest Act, 1973 specially when the agreement between the parties did not provide for payment or interest. In other words, neither by contract nor under law was the respondent entitled to receive pre- reference interest for the period 1.6.1975 to 10.3.1981 which had been awarded to him. As far as future interest is concerned, it was within the jurisdiction of arbitrator to award the same. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the award of pre-reference interest to the sum of ₹ 68635/- is set-aside and the decree will stand modified accordingly.
In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9234 OF 1994 as the claim for interest even for the pre-reference period had arisen after the Interest Act. 1978 had came into force and, therefore the arbitrator could award interest
-
1997 (1) TMI 516
... ...
... ... ..... clear by appropriate provision. In the absence of any inclusion or exclusion in the expression paper it must be held that it included all kinds of paper. Examined from that angle, the view taken by the Tribunal does not stand on close scrutiny. We should not merely be guided either by taking a narrow or common parlance meaning to expression paper as being used only for purposes of writing or printing but in such circumstance, there is such legislative history or practice. It must be understood that the paper boards are a thicker variety of paper containing thin sheets of paper would not put it out of category of paper and therefore, would not cease to be paper and is covered by the expression used in explanation II to entry 16B. Thus the order made by the Tribunal affirming the view taken by the appellate authority in this regard is set aside. Respondents are directed to delete this turnover from the assessment made. 5.. Petitions are allowed accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 515
... ...
... ... ..... ts of exhibit P1 brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader would show that the petitioner in the return has shown both these amounts as particulars of the total turnovers making a total of Rs. 52,73,385 (as rounded off) which is the basis of the demand notice in regard to which the situation is already clarified that turnover tax dues are shown to have been nil though calculated at Rs. 26,367 on the basis of the total taxable turnover being Rs. 52,73,385, obviously including the above figure urged by the learned Government Pleader. 7.. Be that as it may, when there is no liability by reason of the fact that the petitioner is not the second seller, the question does not arise for consideration any more. For all the above reasons the petition succeeds and the proceedings of demand notice (exhibit P2) and its annexure get quashed and set aside. Order on C.M.P. No. 14058 of 1991 in O.P. No. 8229 of 1991-D dismissed. Petition allowed. Page No 16 VATLaws Copyright 2013
-
1997 (1) TMI 514
... ...
... ... ..... e Central Sales Tax Act have not been referred to by any of the authorities and there is no finding that such declarations were not filed by the assessee. Even in the revision petition, there is no averment that such declarations were not filed. Whether the declarations were filed or not is a question of fact and without there being any pleading on the point at any stage not even in the revision petition it is not permissible to the revenue to raise any argument thereon. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 11.. For the above reasons, this revision petition is partly allowed and the Tribunal s finding regarding the turnover of Rs. 32,52,723.91 is set aside and it is held that this turnover was subject to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Sales Tax Tribunal on this point stand set aside and the Commissioner s appeal stands allowed. The Tribunal shall pass the requisite consequential order. Petition partly allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 513
... ...
... ... ..... al was filed within time, namely, within 60 days from the date of communication of order. The appeal was filed on May 3, 1995 and the penalty order was communicated to the applicants on March 8, 1995. That being so, there was no question of limitation. The appellate authority should, therefore, be directed to hear the appeal according to law on merits. 5.. In the above circumstances, the application is allowed. The impugned appellate order dated November 29, 1996 is set aside. Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bureau of Investigation, is directed to hear the appeal and dispose it of according to law after hearing the applicants on merits within a period of twelve weeks from now. 6.. Since the present application succeeds on our interpretation of the expression, the date of such order , we do not enter into the other questions raised in the application. Thus, the main application is finally disposed of without any order for costs. Application allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 512
Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh has no power to legislate in respect of industrial alcohol or to levy taxes in respect thereof and further that the levy being not based on quid pro quo was otherwise bad?
Held that:- The High Court has taken the view that in the case of regulatory fees, like the licence fees, existence of quid pro quo is not necessary although the fee imposed must not be, in the circumstances of the case, excessive. The High Court further held that keeping in view the quantum and nature of the work involved in supervising the process of denaturation and the consequent expenses incurred by the State, the fee of 7 paise per litre was reasonable and proper. We see no reason to differ with this view of the High Court. In view of the foregoing, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 511
... ...
... ... ..... the principles laid down in the decisions discussed hereinabove. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners collected an excess amount of Rs. 12,362.30 by way of surcharge from the viewers which could not be legally collected from them. This amount must be refunded either to the viewers-something which cannot be achievedor it should go to the State exchequer. The petitioners have no authority legal or moral, to keep it with them. Both these points are decided against the petitioners. 28.. To conclude, I uphold the orders dated June 29, 1978 and August 21, 1980, passed by the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 respectively, and dismiss the petition with costs which I quantify at Rs. 1,000. The petitioners shall also pay interest on the amount of Rs. 12,362.30 at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date it was refunded/adjusted till the date of payment to the Government. R.K. Nair (Technical Member).-I concur with the honourable Judicial Member. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 510
... ...
... ... ..... ound that the movement of goods from branch office at Faridabad to the head office being a movement preceding the one which caused movement of goods from Calcutta to outside India, cannot be regarded as taking place in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal and other adjudicating authorities have seriously erred in holding that the movement of the goods from Faridabad to Calcutta was not occasioned in the course of export out of the territory of India. In our opinion, the Tribunal has seriously erred in invoking the ratio of the decision of the apex Court in Mod. Serajuddin s case 1975 36 STC 136 without applying mind to the background in which the observations were made by the Supreme Court. 16.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders annexures P-1, P-2, and P-3 are declared illegal and the same are quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 509
... ...
... ... ..... from the present facts) this court held that the value of the gunny bags therein were not taxable. Then, Mookken Devassy Ouseph and Sons v. State of Kerala 1975 36 STC 501 (Ker) was a case of sale of retail dealers at the rates and profit fixed by the Government, foodgrains in gunny bags after purchasing from the Food Corporation of India. There too, the assessee got the food grains in gunny bags and supplied them to the retail dealers in the same condition in gunny bags. No doubt, in the context, it was held that the assessee therein was not liable to pay sales tax on the estimated value of gunny bags. However it must be stated that the said decision also turned on its own facts. 11.. The net result is, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are restored. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.
........
|
