|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 6337 Records
-
2003 (12) TMI 624 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the challenge made to convic-tion under Section 397 even after excluding the applicability of Section 34 IPC does not merit countenance, for the reason that each one of the accused in this case were said to have been wielding a deadly weapon of their own, and thereby squarely fulfilled the ingredients of Section 397 IPC, de hors any reference to Section 34 IPC?
-
2003 (12) TMI 623 - SUPREME COURT
Whether if at all the plea of res judicata was to be availed and applied then that should have been for the benefit of the plaintiff inasmuch as his predecessor-in-title had succeeded in proving his title to part of the property in the earlier suit?
-
2003 (12) TMI 622 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llowed vide order dated May 9, 2000 passed by the Tribunal in review and that the delay to pay the small difference of Rs. 6,622 was on account of a calculation error. Even this amount was paid on November 22, 2001. It appears that while passing the impugned order dated March 21, 2002 (annexure P7), its earlier order dated May 9, 2000 had completely escaped the notice of the Tribunal. In view of the fact that the petitioner had substantially complied with the order of the Tribunal dated May 9, 2000 and also that the entire tax stands paid, we are of the view that the slight delay of a few months in payment of Rs. 6,622 deserved to be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Orders, annexures P5 and P7, are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal of the appeal afresh on merits. No costs. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Tribunal on January 19, 2004 for further proceedings.
-
2003 (12) TMI 621 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Mr. Rajesh Bindal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the entire amount stands paid as under Rs. 2,59,835 on November 8, 2001 Rs. 4 lacs on May 24, 2002 A perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated August 12, 2002 shows that these payments have not been taken into account while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that since the entire disputed tax stands paid, it would be in the interest of justice that the appeal of the petitioner is disposed of on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, order dated January 9, 2002 passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak (annexure P3) and order dated August 12, 2002 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (annexure P5) are set aside and the matter restored back to respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal on merits. No costs. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on January 19, 2004.
-
2003 (12) TMI 620 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... When Legislature intended to withdraw the exemption to the brick-kiln, the same was specifically excluded from the entry, vide, notification dated January 31, 1985. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that brick-kiln is covered under cottage pottery industries and entitled for the exemption under the Notification No. ST-II-5025/X-6(12)-1979-U.P. Act XV/48-order-79, dated June 30, 1979. It is made clear that applicant is entitled for the exemption only for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 up to March 22, 1984, as till then, applicant was holding certificate from the U.P. Khadi Board. After March 23, 1984 applicant was not having certificate from the U.P. Khadi Board, therefore, not entitled for the benefit of the notification. In the result, revision No. 1094 of 1992 for the assessment year 1982-83, revision No. 1695 of 1992 relating to the assessment year 1983-84 are allowed and revision No. 1095 of 1992 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 619 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the apex court in the case of Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. 1978 42 STC 433, and in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. 1980 46 STC 256 AIR 1980 SC 1552. In the case of Omvik Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1980 UPTC 912, fused collars and shoulder straps has been held as cotton fabrics. In the present case since it is found as a fact that the leather cloth is a cotton coated fabric it is one of the varieties of cotton fabric and falls under the textile. It is now seen that the leather cloth are commonly used as a textile. It is used for making coat, jackets, table sheets, etc., and is used and known as textile. Perusal of the notification also shows that the textile includes water proof cloth. Leather cloth being water proof may also fall under water proof cloth . For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal, which is hereby upheld. In the result, both the revisions fails and are dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 618 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tself has provided for waiver of penalty and interest on tax. A narrow interpretation would defeat the very object of the measure. This judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Matter is remitted back for re-decision by the respondents. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to waiver of penalty and pass orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Admittedly petitioner has made over Rs. 2,50,000 in terms of the interim order granted by this court. On the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to retain the said amount till a final decision is taken in terms of this order. In the light of this order, annexure B, has to go and the same is set aside by this court. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
-
2003 (12) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application and award compensation in respect of an accident involving the death of a person caused by the use of a motor vehicle?
Held that:- It is for the forum under the 1986 Act to leave the parties either to proceed or avail the remedies before the other forums, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, having regard to all aspects we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of disputes to arbitration shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable. The National Commission, however, did not take note of the fact that the State Commission had not decided the other contentions raised in the appeals on merits. We are inclined to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant for remanding the case to the State Commission for deciding the other issues on merits while affirming that the complaints before the district forum made by the respondents were maintainable and the district forum had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. In this view, while affirming the order of the National Commission as to the maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the Act, we remand the appeals to the State Commission for their adjudication on other issues on merits without going to the question of maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the 1986 Act.
-
2003 (12) TMI 616 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... any submissions about these articles. It would be inappropriate to comment on them at any length, and brief comment would fail to do justice to them. I would however add that I would readily agree with Ms Millar that some of the services performed in what I have loosely called the free gift cases were almost illusory, and that the dividing line between such services and the giving of a discount is correspondingly obscure (just as the dividing line between a contract and a conditional gift may be obscure). But in the VAT system legal certainty is important, as well as fiscal neutrality, and if a supplier wishes to give a discount it is up to him to make his intention clear, especially in the context of a part-exchange transaction. Hartwell plc v. Customs and Excise Comrs 2003 STC 396 shows that it is possible, with appropriate documentation. 32 For these reasons I would dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors K Legal Solicitor for the Customs and Excise.
-
2003 (12) TMI 615 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... claim exemption arises on satisfying the requirement of exemption notification. In other words, once any dealer is able to satisfy the authorities that they have fulfilled the requirements of the exemption notification which enable them to claim exemption, the State cannot then deny the exemption on any ipse dixit. The object of granting exemption is aimed to provide incentive to the entrepreneur and hence, its benefit must be extended to the entrepreneurs as far as possible. 11.. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order, dated September 30, 2002, passed by S.L.C. (annexure P-1) is quashed by writ of certiorari. A writ of mandamus is issued against the respondents to issue sales tax exemption certificate in favour of petitioner for the period to which they are eligible as per the notifications in respect of the item specified in their application. Let this be done within three months. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 614 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty certificate once granted can be withdrawn. Similarly, the alleged violation of the other Act, i.e., The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1973, has no bearing for adjudication of the point at issue in the present writ petition. We may also mention that the State Government has not initiated any action against the petitioner for the alleged violation. On a query from the Bench it has also been conceded that no action has been initiated against the members of the Screening Committee which had granted the eligibility certificate without the CLU. 4.. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the dispute in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in R.K. Mittal Woollen Mills case 2001 123 STC 248 (2000) 15 PHT 261 and Baldev Spinners 39 case 2003 132 STC 594 (2003) 21 PHT 459. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned order annexure P8 is quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 613 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tax Officer safeguarding the interest of Revenue to the extent of the liability of tax which is subject-matter of impugned demand notice (annexure P 19). This will be done within one month. 5.. The petitioner will also furnish written undertaking in favour of concerned Commercial Tax Officer that they shall abide by the orders passed by the appellate authority and in the event of decision going against them, they shall deposit the entire tax liability within one month from the date of the appellate order. 6.. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal strictly on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court within the time fixed. 7.. Till the disposal of appeal, the operation of impugned demand (annexure P 19) shall remain in abeyance. However, property in question belonging to the petitioner and as specified in demand notice shall remain under attachment. Certified copy within three days. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (12) TMI 612 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... laim for restitution since is neither an absolute right nor unconditional obligation, as discussed above, the claimant, therefore, have to establish that he had suffered real loss or prejudice. Without establishing the fact that he had borne the burden of tax, is not entitled to get any refund. Whether the burden of duty has been passed to a third party, is a matter within the full knowledge of the petitioner and he also is in possession of the best and relevant evidence to prove the fact. 18.. In view of the reasons stated above, we disallow the claim of the petitioner for refund at this stage. The notice dated December 23, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2 is also set aside with a direction to proceed in accordance with law. 19.. The application is thus disposed of without costs. Other three applications, RN-7, RN-8 and RN-9 of 2003 are also disposed of accordingly without costs. 20.. S.S. CHATTOPADHYAY (Technical Member). - I agree. Applications disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (12) TMI 611 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to consider all the points urged and canvassed by the petitioners in these writ petitions and has to take a decision on merits. Therefore, in the circumstances, it cannot be held that notices issued by the second respondent as one without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain these writ petitions. 19.. When I have held that the petitioners cannot maintain these writ petitions challenging the show cause notices issued by second respondent, there is no necessity for this Court to consider the various submissions made by Sri P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners on the second point. 20.. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed as premature. Second respondent is directed to examine all the contentions urged by the petitioners in reply and take action in accordance with law on merits if need be by giving personal hearing to the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, parties to bear their costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 610 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es not have to refund if the petitioner did not collect tax from these purchasers for raw materials. The absence of any specific provisions in the Scheme shall not however stand in the way of making a technical demand. In case the petitioners are directed to deposit the taxes, they will be entitled to claim the same from the eligible industrial units, i.e., the purchasers and in turn these purchasers will be entitled to claim refund under the Scheme itself. The Government will not be a beneficiary in any case and this will be a futile exercise as there is no specific provision under the Scheme in this regard. In the absence of any allegation whatsoever, that the petitioner-company sold goods to ineligible purchasers without collecting taxes, the petitioner-company is not liable to pay taxes on the sale of goods to the eligible units. 9.. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notices, etc., stands quashed. No order as to cost. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 609 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the amount which is collected by him, the same is not sufficient ground not to forfeit the same . This finding in my view is not sustainable in law in the light of section 18 and section 18-AA. In these circumstances, accepting the argument of the petitioner, I deem it proper to set aside annexure G on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The other issues raised by the petitioner need not be considered in the light of this finding. It is made clear that the petitioner is not to seek refund of the amount already made over in the light of his objections in support of his submissions. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure G is set aside. Consequently the demand at annexure H is also set aside. No opinion is expressed with regard to the declaratory prayer as sought for in para 15 of the writ petition. I also deem it proper to observe that if any other avenues is available to the respondents they may opt for the same in accordance with law. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oner as the initial attachment itself is one which cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner, however, shall remove the goods from the Port under the supervision of the officers of the enforcement wing who shall ensure that the goods are moved out of the State. Petitioner shall also give an undertaking that no part of the goods shall be sold in Tamil Nadu or by way of inter-State sale from Tamil Nadu. Petitioner shall also furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakhs only) to ensure compliance with the terms of this order. The reasonable expenses incurred by the State in deputing its officers to ensure movement of the goods from the place of storage to the border of the State and beyond shall also be borne by the petitioner. The movement of goods can commence immediately after the bank guarantee and undertaking are furnished by the petitioner. These writ petition is accordingly allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 607 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nufacturer. In the proceeding under section 21 of the Act burden lies upon the revenue to prove that in respect of the alleged goods, applicant was importer. No material has been placed on record to establish that in respect of the alleged goods, applicant was importer. Therefore, merely because the parties from whom the applicant, alleged to have made the purchases, on enquiry were found not traceable or fake tax could not be levied unless there is material to establish that the applicant was importer in respect of such goods. Assessment order shows that assessing authority failed to establish that applicant was importer in respect of such goods and, therefore, levy of tax on such goods is illegal on this ground also. 13.. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of Tribunal dated December 21, 1991 is set aside and it is held that initiation of proceeding under section 21 of the Act for the assessment year 1980-81 was illegal and without jurisdiction. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 606 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... coming under rule 214B since admittedly it is intra-State transfer. Thus all the contentions made by the State Representative fail, they must fail also. 13.. In view of above we are of the opinion that the action of respondent No. 1 in seizing the goods and imposing the penalty is bad in law and it is without jurisdiction and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the impugned seizure in Seizure Case No. 757 DP Range/1/2002-03 and subsequent imposition of penalty by order dated December 14, 2002 made under section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 are struck down. The instant petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refund the money already deposited as penalty by the petitioner within a period of one month from this date. 14.. In the present facts and circumstances of the case we do not make any order for costs. The case is thus finally disposed of. 15.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. 16.. P.K. GANGULY (Judicial Member). - I agree. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 605 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cer safeguarding the interest of Revenue to the extent of the liability of tax which is subject-matter of impugned demand notice. (annexures P-20 to P-23). This will be done within one month. 5.. The petitioner will also furnish written undertaking in favour of concerned Commercial Tax Officer that they shall abide by the orders passed by the appellate authority and in the event of decision going against them, they shall deposit the entire tax liability within one month from the date of the appellate order. 6.. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal strictly on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court within the time fixed. 7.. Till the disposal of appeal, the operation of impugned demand (annexures P-20 to P-23) shall remain in abeyance. However, property in question belonging to petitioner and as specified in demand notice shall remain under attachment. Certified copy within three days. Writ petition disposed of.
........
|
