|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 480 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 600
Issues:
1. Claim for winding-up due to unpaid debts by Luxmi Industrial Gases (P.) Ltd. against Punjab Chemi Plant International Ltd.
2. Dispute regarding rates and payments between the parties.
3. Validity of the notice served under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, Luxmi Industrial Gases (P.) Ltd., sought winding-up of Punjab Chemi Plant International Ltd. for unpaid debts. Luxmi Industrial Gases provided materials for a power plant project, with outstanding amounts totaling Rs. 14,37,245.73. Despite repeated reminders and agreements for payment, Punjab Chemi Plant failed to settle the dues, leading to the winding-up petition.
2. Punjab Chemi Plant contested the winding-up petition, claiming disputes over rates and transactions. They argued that the petitioner unilaterally increased rates, making the amounts claimed not payable. However, Luxmi Industrial Gases maintained that the rates were agreed upon and supported their claim with documents confirming the transactions and outstanding amounts. The court noted discrepancies in Punjab Chemi Plant's defenses and highlighted their lack of effort to clear admitted liabilities.
3. Regarding the notice served under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, the court found that Luxmi Industrial Gases had properly served the notice to the Managing Director of Punjab Chemi Plant, which was admitted by the respondent. The court ruled that substantial compliance with the notice requirements had been met, as the notice contained all necessary details and the receipt was acknowledged.
In conclusion, the court admitted the winding-up petition by Luxmi Industrial Gases (P.) Ltd. against Punjab Chemi Plant International Ltd., citing the respondent's admitted liabilities and lack of bona fide defenses. The court also upheld the validity of the notice served under the Companies Act, rejecting the respondent's argument against it. The case was scheduled for further directions, with a notice to be published in relevant publications for the next hearing.
-
1998 (11) TMI 599
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to pay debts.
2. Quality and specification disputes of supplied goods.
3. Rejection and acceptance of goods.
4. Delay in filing the winding-up petition.
5. Existence of an alternative legal remedy.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Failure to Pay Debts:
Om Packages filed a petition under sections 433, 434 read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of Agro Dutch Foods Limited on the grounds of failure to pay debts despite demands. The petitioner claimed that they supplied 17,486 cartons, out of which 3,510 were rejected. The total claimed amount, including sales tax and interest, was Rs. 2,99,282.80. Despite repeated demands and a legal notice, the respondent made only a partial payment of Rs. 50,000, leading to the petitioner's claim that the respondent was commercially insolvent.
2. Quality and Specification Disputes of Supplied Goods:
The respondent contested the petition, arguing that the supplied goods were defective and did not meet the specified standards. They claimed that the petitioner had been informed about the defects and had failed to lift the rejected goods. The respondent emphasized that the defective goods were not as per approved samples and were substandard, which was critical for their export-oriented business. The petitioner's acknowledgment of the rejection and lifting of goods was evident from the correspondence.
3. Rejection and Acceptance of Goods:
The court noted that there was an agreement on the supply of goods and a fixed rate. However, disputes arose regarding the rejection of goods and the subsequent payment. The respondent's communications indicated that the petitioner was aware of the rejection and had lifted the defective goods. The court highlighted the serious and complex nature of the disputes, which required detailed evidence to determine the extent of rejected goods and whether the petitioner failed to lift them despite requests.
4. Delay in Filing the Winding-Up Petition:
The court observed an unreasonable delay in filing the winding-up petition. The petitioner served a notice in April 1996, but the petition was filed in January 1998, after a considerable delay. The court emphasized that a winding-up petition is a serious proceeding and should be initiated without unreasonable delay. The delay and discrepancies in the notice and petition led to adverse inferences against the petitioner.
5. Existence of an Alternative Legal Remedy:
The court noted that the petitioner had already filed a regular suit in a competent court for the recovery of the same amount claimed in the winding-up petition. The existence of this alternative remedy further weakened the petitioner's case for winding up the respondent company.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the winding-up petition, highlighting the serious and complex nature of the disputes, the unreasonable delay in filing the petition, and the existence of an alternative legal remedy. The court clarified that the observations made in the order should not influence the ongoing suit between the parties.
-
1998 (11) TMI 598
Issues involved:
1. Liability under Section 541 of the Companies Act, 1956 for not keeping proper accounts.
2. Liability under Section 542 of the Companies Act, 1956 for fraudulent conduct of business.
3. Liability under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for misfeasance or breach of trust.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability under Section 541 of the Companies Act, 1956 for not keeping proper accounts:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to keep proper books of account throughout the period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of the winding up. The auditor, P.W.-1, stated that the accounts were incomplete when made available to him, but there was no evidence to show that the books were incomplete throughout the required period. The auditor's report indicated that proper books were kept but not properly maintained. Additionally, there were no specific averments or evidence to show which respondent was responsible for maintaining the books. Thus, no case under Section 541 was made out.
2. Liability under Section 542 of the Companies Act, 1956 for fraudulent conduct of business:
Section 542(1) requires evidence that the business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. The petitioner's allegations were limited to the respondents' failure to take legal steps against debtors for recovery of amounts due. There were no averments or evidence of any fraudulent intention. Mere failure to initiate legal steps does not constitute fraudulent conduct under Section 542. Therefore, no case under Section 542 was established.
3. Liability under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for misfeasance or breach of trust:
The petitioner claimed that certain respondents misapplied and retained movable properties and failed to pay amounts due to the company. However, no relevant records, books of account, or necessary vouchers were produced as evidence. The petitioner's case relied heavily on the auditor's report, which did not substantiate the claims under Section 543. Even if some items of furniture were found missing, there was no specific evidence linking any particular respondent to the missing items. Therefore, no case under Section 543 was made out.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petition as the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims under Sections 541, 542, and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 589
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned order regarding confiscation of goods, confirmation of demand, and imposition of higher penalty.
2. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods.
3. Validity of admissions and statements by the Director and employees.
4. Adequacy of evidence for evasion of duty and removal of goods without payment of duty.
5. Relevance and accuracy of purity registers and other records.
6. Justification for higher penalties and confirmation of demands as per the show cause notice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Impugned Order:
The application under Section 35-E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was filed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs Ahmedabad against the order-in-original dated 8-5-1992. The main contention was whether the impugned order, which did not confiscate the goods, confirm the demand, or impose higher penalties, was legally correct and proper. The application sought to modify the order by confiscating the seized goods, confirming the demand of Rs. 309,487.50, and imposing penalties.
2. Allegations of Clandestine Removal:
The Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Hydro-chloric Acid and availed Modvat credit on inputs. During a visit by Preventive Officers, shortages of 29,070 kgs of Caustic Soda flakes and 18,621 kgs of Hydro-chloric Acid were noticed. The respondents debited Rs. 42,966/- for the credit taken on these inputs. Further investigations revealed that the respondents had cleared several bags of Hydro-chloric Acid without payment of duty. The show cause notice demanded a total duty of Rs. 309,487.50 and proposed penalties.
3. Validity of Admissions and Statements:
The JDR argued that the case involved clandestine removal, supported by admissions from the Excise Clerk, Cashier, Accountant, and Director. These statements were not retracted and were considered inculpatory. The Modvat credit was taken, and duty was paid upon inspection by the officers. The JDR contended that the demand should be confirmed, and higher penalties imposed.
4. Adequacy of Evidence:
The Respondent's consultant argued that no goods were seized, only shortages were noted, and no excess goods were found. The purity register was not a stock register, and there was no positive evidence of clandestine removal or shortage. The cross-examination of the Superintendent revealed that no inquiries were made with the purchasers to confirm the receipt of goods. The department failed to discharge its burden of proof for clandestine removal and shortage.
5. Relevance and Accuracy of Records:
The adjudicating authority considered the statements of the Director and employees, the defence taken by the appellant, and the cross-examination of the investigating officers. It was noted that the purity register entries did not correlate with the actual removal of goods. The entries were made at the semi-finished stage, and no evidence was provided to show that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. The cross-examination revealed that the Superintendent did not make inquiries to correlate the quantity mentioned in the vouchers with duty-paying gate passes.
6. Justification for Higher Penalties:
The assessment of shortages by eye estimate was admitted by the Superintendent and ignored in the review order. There was no positive evidence for shortages and clandestine removal. The impugned order, which was exhaustive and considered all available material, concluded that there were no sufficient grounds to impose higher penalties or confirm the demands as per the show cause notice.
Conclusion:
The application by the Department to modify the impugned order by confiscating goods, confirming the demand, and imposing higher penalties was rejected. The adjudicating authority found that the evidence provided by the Department was insufficient and unsatisfactory to support the allegations of clandestine removal and evasion of duty. The impugned order was upheld, and the application was dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 588
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeal regarding duty payment on a photocopier imported for demonstration. The appellant failed to re-export the photocopier within the extended period due to it being destroyed in a fire. The tribunal held that the fire was not an Act of God and duty payment was required, irrespective of foreign exchange involvement. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 587
Issues:
1. Determination of the quality of imported goods.
2. Examination of goods before clearance by the Custom House.
3. Validity of confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty imposition.
Issue 1: Determination of the quality of imported goods
The judgment revolves around the quality assessment of imported goods declared as secondary hot rolled stainless steel sheets/plates by M/s. Mehta Steel Corporation. The Custom House found the goods to be of prime quality after a visual examination by an expert and a chemical examination by an officer of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). However, the appellant argued for further tests by organizations like SGS India, which revealed discrepancies in microstructure and visual inspection despite meeting chemical requirements. The court emphasized that surface defects alone do not determine prime quality, highlighting the need for comprehensive testing beyond visual inspection. Ultimately, the court concluded that the goods were not prime quality as alleged, leading to the reversal of the impugned order.
Issue 2: Examination of goods before clearance by the Custom House
The judgment scrutinizes the examination process conducted by the Custom House before clearing the imported goods. The departmental representative contended that the examination was a percentage examination covering only defective parts, which were not seized upon re-examination. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the percentage examination aims to ensure fair testing representation and avoid delays. Despite a portion of the goods being found defective, the court noted that the goods declared as seconds were accepted and cleared by the Custom House initially, supporting the importer's case. This led to the conclusion that the goods were indeed secondary goods, rendering the confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty unsustainable.
Issue 3: Validity of confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty imposition
The final issue addressed the validity of the confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty imposed on M/s. Mehta Steel Corporation and the other appellant, Dinesh Shah. The Commissioner's order was based on the belief that the goods were under-declared in value and of prime quality, justifying the confiscation and penalty. However, the court's detailed analysis of the examination reports, testing discrepancies, and the initial acceptance of goods as seconds by the Custom House led to the reversal of the impugned order. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai highlights the critical issues of quality determination, examination procedures, and the validity of confiscation and penalties in the context of the imported goods case.
-
1998 (11) TMI 586
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving the seizure of medicinal goods worth Rs. 6,853. The goods were confiscated by the Assistant Commissioner under the Customs Act, 1962, for an alleged attempt to export them to Bangladesh. However, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of actual smuggling and overturned the confiscation order, granting relief to the appellant.
-
1998 (11) TMI 585
Issues:
Appeal against duty demand confirmation, interpretation of exemption Notification No. 91/89, unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
Analysis:
1. Duty Demand Confirmation:
The appeal arose from the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confirming a duty demand against the appellants. The dispute centered around the import of electronic parts for music systems and radio cassette recorders, seeking the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 91/89. The disagreement stemmed from discrepancies between part numbers in invoices and catalogues.
2. Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The Collector (Appeals) allowed exemption for certain items under the exemption Notification based on the importer's explanations and descriptions of goods. However, for other items, discrepancies in part numbers led to denial of exemption. The appellants relied on Chartered Engineer certificates to support their claim that the imported items corresponded to those listed in the Notification.
3. Unjust Enrichment Issue:
The appellants argued that their refund claim did not fall under unjust enrichment as per Section 27 of the Customs Act. They cited a Tribunal judgment in support of their position. However, the Tribunal noted that the matter of unjust enrichment was still pending before the Asstt. Commissioner and could not be decided in the present appeal.
4. Judicial Review and Dismissal:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented. It found that the Chartered Engineer certificates, crucial to the appellants' case, were obtained after the impugned order and thus inadmissible. As the appellants failed to produce these certificates before the Collector (Appeals), the Tribunal did not consider them. Without additional evidence to challenge the Collector's findings, the Tribunal upheld the order and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the issue of unjust enrichment needed to be addressed separately.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the inadmissibility of crucial evidence and the pending issue of unjust enrichment. The decision highlighted the importance of timely submission of evidence and separate consideration of legal issues as per the Customs Act.
-
1998 (11) TMI 567
Issues:
Petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up due to unpaid debts.
Analysis:
1. Background and Facts: J.G. Finance Ltd. filed a petition seeking winding up of Hansaflon Plastochem Ltd. for failing to repay an intercorporate deposit of Rs. 50,00,000 with interest. Despite partial repayments, a significant amount remained due, leading to the petition.
2. Debt Dispute: Respondent admitted receiving Rs. 50 lakhs but claimed to have supplied material in lieu of the balance amount. However, the petitioner denied receiving any goods, and the respondent failed to provide evidence of delivery, leading to a dispute over the debt amount.
3. Legal Notice Issue: Respondent argued that the notice did not comply with section 434 requirements, lacking specific mention of sections 433 and 434 and the three-week period. However, the court held that substantial compliance suffices and non-mentioning of specific terms does not invalidate the notice.
4. Judicial Precedents: The court referred to legal precedents to support the principle that minor deficiencies in a notice do not necessarily render it invalid, emphasizing the importance of substantial compliance with mandatory provisions.
5. Respondent's Conduct: The court considered the respondent's conduct, noting the lack of response to the notice and failure to produce relevant records. This conduct, along with the unrebutted claims of the petitioner, led to an adverse inference against the respondent.
6. Decision and Order: The court found the respondent liable for the debt, as it remained unpaid despite admission and failed repayment attempts. The petition was admitted, and notice of admission was ordered to be published in specified publications. A stay on publication was granted if the respondent deposited Rs. 7 lakhs in court.
7. Future Directions: The court scheduled the matter for further directions, indicating a clear timeline for the next hearing and publication of the winding up petition.
This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, including debt dispute, legal notice compliance, judicial precedents, respondent's conduct, decision, and future directions set by the court.
-
1998 (11) TMI 561
Issues:
1. Modvat credit benefit on Phenol used in the manufacture of Thinner for Winding Wires.
2. Classification of Thinner as an intermediate product in the manufacture of Insulating Varnish.
3. Applicability of Rule 57-D for Modvat credit on Thinner.
Analysis:
1. The appellant sought Modvat credit benefit on Phenol used in the manufacture of Thinner for Winding Wires. The appellant manufactures Copper Winding Wires and Insulating Varnish, using declared inputs for availing Modvat credit. A portion of Phenol is used in Thinner to adjust viscosity for Insulating Varnish, which is cleared for captive consumption. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for wrong Modvat credit availed on Phenol, leading to demand confirmation by the Assistant Collector. The appeal was dismissed, questioning the admissibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57-D(ii).
2. The key issue was whether Thinner qualifies as an intermediate product in the manufacturing process of Insulating Varnish. Thinner, used to adjust viscosity, was considered by the appellant as an intermediate product. However, the Tribunal found that Thinner and Insulating Varnish are distinct products manufactured through different processes. Thinner's purpose is to prepare the varnish for insulating wires, making both products independent and non-intermediate. Consequently, Rule 57-D was deemed inapplicable, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for Modvat credit on Thinner.
3. The appellant contended that Thinner, used in the manufacture of Copper Winding Wires, qualifies for Modvat credit under Rule 57-D(2) as an exempt final product. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that Thinner, being a final product exempt from duty, does not qualify as an intermediate product under Rule 57-C. As Thinner is not deemed an intermediate product in the manufacturing process, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appellant's claim for Modvat credit.
In conclusion, the Tribunal denied the appellant's appeal, stating that Thinner does not meet the criteria of an intermediate product for Modvat credit under Rule 57-D. The judgment emphasized the distinction between Thinner and Insulating Varnish, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for Modvat credit on the Phenol used in the manufacture of Thinner.
-
1998 (11) TMI 560
Issues:
1. Import of goods against cancelled licences.
2. Liability of penalty on the appellant.
Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods against two REP import licences issued to a non-existent firm, Overseas Enterprises, which were later cancelled due to fraud and misrepresentation. Customs found that the appellant, as the purported transferee of the licences, colluded in obtaining and selling them. The Collector ordered the absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20.00 lacs on the appellant. The appellant argued that the imports were made before the licence cancellation and claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the licences, thus not liable for penalty.
2. The appellant's advocate cited legal precedents to support their contention, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Tribunal. The departmental representative emphasized that the licences were obtained through fraudulent means, referencing relevant legal cases. The Tribunal analyzed the legal position based on precedents, stating that a licence obtained by fraud may be avoidable but remains valid until voided as per the law. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation of the goods as the licences were deemed non-existent due to the non-existence of Overseas Enterprises, the licensee.
3. Regarding the liability of penalty on the appellant, the Collector highlighted various aspects indicating collusion in obtaining the licences. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations and evidence regarding the transactions and payments related to the licences. The Tribunal considered these factors and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 5.00 lacs, emphasizing the import of goods without a valid licence as the basis for the penalty. The Tribunal's decision partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty amount imposed on the appellant.
-
1998 (11) TMI 549
Power to make to include power to add, amend, vary or rescind orders, etc
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The Legislature, empowered the State Government to amend Schedule I only to this extent that it could widen the scope thereof, either by including therein goods which had not already got its benefit or by relaxing or removing conditions which were a pre-requisite for obtaining the exemption thereunder. No power was conferred by the statute upon the State Government in any way to curtail the scope of Schedule I. Having regard to the express terms of section 10(2), reliance upon section 21 of Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act was uncalled for. In any event, under section 21 the power to issue a notification, order, rule or bye-law conferred by a Madhya Pradesh Act is to be read as including a power to add to, amend, vary or rescind the notification, order, rule or bye-law so issued. Section 21 has no application to a case such as this where the Schedule (Schedule I) is a part of the statute itself and not the creation of a notification, order, rule or bye-law.
-
1998 (11) TMI 544
Whether rubber trees were not timber and were, therefore, subject to the levy of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- There can be no doubt that, in the circumstances, the Tribunal should have considered the materials that were placed before it and should have decided, as a matter of fact, whether rubber trees were timber. That error should have been cured by the High Court by remanding the matters to the Tribunal to consider the material and arrive at a finding thereon. It should not have considered that material itself, the final fact-finding body being the Tribunal, the finding as to whether rubber trees were timber should have been left to be decided by the Tribunal.
Thus it is appropriate to set aside the judgments and orders under appeal and remand the matters to the Tribunal.
-
1998 (11) TMI 537
Whether notification issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of power under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were violative of articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution?
Held that:- Having regard to the reasons for the issuance thereof now placed on an affidavit by the State of Rajasthan, the said judgment Shri Digvijay Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1997 (3) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] would, prima facie appear to be binding in so far as it upholds the second contention. Thus the said judgment requires to be considered by a larger Bench, particularly in regard to the second contention. We, therefore, direct that the papers and proceedings in these matters be placed before the honourable the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
-
1998 (11) TMI 532
Petition dismissed by High Court in view of an alternative remedy being available to the appellant
Held that:- Appeal allowed in part. In view of the observations made by the High Court, the appellate authority has rejected the appellant's appeal at the threshold and the appellant has been left without any remedy under the law. In such circumstances, observations made by the High Court in its judgment on merits of the case was totally uncalled for and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, we set aside the observations made by the High Court in the judgment under appeal to the extent they relate to the merit of the case which was the subject-matter of appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Authority. Since the appellate authority under the Act observed that delay could have been condoned and also the fact that the appellant has deposited 20 per cent of the tax, we set aside the order of the appellate authority dated June 22, 1996 and restore the appeal to the file of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), who shall decide the appeal expeditiously on its own merit without being influenced H by any of the observations made by the High Court in the writ petition.
-
1998 (11) TMI 531
Whether the Income-tax Officer could issue a notice of assessment to a person as an agent of a non-resident party under the amended provisions when the period prescribed for such notice had, before the amended Act came into force, expired?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Here, it is the completion of assessment or reassessment under section 21 which is to be done before the expiration of 8 years of that particular assessment year. Read as it is, these provisions would mean that the assessment for the year 1985-86 could be reopened up to March 31, 1994. Authorisation by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and completion of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (1) of section 21 have to be completed within 8 years of the particular assessment year. We need not refer to the provisions of Income-tax Act to interpret proviso to section 21(2) language of which is clear and unambiguous and so is the intention of Legislature. We are, thus, of the view that High Court was not right in quashing the sanction given by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and notices issued by the assessing authority in pursuance thereto.
-
1998 (11) TMI 530
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to benefits under paragraph 10.4(i)(b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993.
2. Validity of Notification No. S.O. 95 dated April 4, 1994, imposing conditions on the benefit of sales tax exemption.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Benefits under Paragraph 10.4(i)(b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993:
The primary issue was whether industrial units established before April 1, 1993, with investments in plant and machinery not exceeding Rs. 15 crores and which had commenced production before that date, were entitled to the benefit of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material for seven years from April 1, 1993, as per paragraph 10.4(i)(b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993.
The petitioners argued that paragraph 10.4(i)(b) clearly referred to old industrial units without any condition regarding the date of production or previous benefits availed under earlier policies. The policy did not impose any additional conditions beyond the stated investment limit.
The State, represented by the learned Advocate-General, contended that the policy was intended to exclude units that had already benefited under previous policies. The notification dated April 4, 1994, was issued to clarify that only units not availing earlier benefits were eligible for the exemption.
The court held that the Industrial Incentive Policy of 1993 must be read as a whole. The policy's language was clear and unequivocal in extending the sales tax exemption to old industrial units meeting the investment criteria, without any additional conditions. The court concluded that the policy did indeed confer this limited benefit on older units, and the notification's additional condition was not warranted by the policy.
2. Validity of Notification No. S.O. 95 dated April 4, 1994:
The notification issued by the Commercial Taxes Department on April 4, 1994, stipulated that the sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw materials would only be granted to units that had not availed of benefits under any previous industrial policy.
The petitioners argued that this notification was contrary to the clear language of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993, and thus should be quashed. They asserted that the notification effectively deprived them of the benefits promised under the policy.
The State defended the notification, claiming it was consistent with the policy and issued under the authority of paragraph 10.5 of the policy, which allowed the Commercial Taxes Department to impose conditions for the exemption.
The court found that the notification's condition was inconsistent with the policy decision. The Industrial Incentive Policy of 1993 did not impose such a condition, and the notification could not modify the policy by adding conditions that deprived industrial units of the benefits granted. The court held that the notification was invalid to the extent it imposed the additional condition.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notification dated April 4, 1994, to the extent it imposed a condition that the facility of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material would be available only to old industrial units that had not availed of any facility/benefit under the earlier incentive policy. The court declared that the petitioners were entitled to the facility of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material under paragraph 10.4(i)(b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993.
-
1998 (11) TMI 527
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "manufacture" under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in the context of processing iron and steel scrap.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the cutting down of iron and steel scrap into smaller pieces by mechanical processes constitutes "manufacture" under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellants purchased scrap from various sources and processed it into smaller strips for use by different manufacturers. The State Government issued a notification granting tax exemption to dealers who had established eligible industrial units and processed goods they were licensed to manufacture. The appellants obtained eligibility certificates based on this notification but were later asked to show cause for cancellation due to the lack of manufacturing new items.
The High Court, in its judgment under appeal, emphasized previous decisions under different statutes and concluded that the appellants' activities did not amount to "manufacture" as the basic character of the scrap remained unchanged. The court held that processing the scrap into various shapes required by customers did not alter its identity enough to qualify as manufacturing. However, the appellants argued that the Act's definition of "manufacture" was not limited to producing new articles, citing relevant notifications and orders to support their position.
The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of "manufacture" under the Act, which includes any process of producing, collecting, or preparing goods. The Court noted that the definition did not specify the creation of new articles as a requirement for manufacturing. The Court highlighted that the processing of iron and steel scrap into saleable goods fell within the broad definition of "manufacture" provided in the Act. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment and orders under appeal, and directed the respondent-authorities to grant relief to the appellants in accordance with the judgment.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified that the processing of iron and steel scrap into smaller pieces by mechanical means constitutes "manufacture" under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The decision emphasized the broad definition of "manufacture" under the Act, which includes preparing goods for sale, without the requirement of creating new articles.
-
1998 (11) TMI 526
Whether section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as being invalid?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We are in complete agreement with the view of the Kerala High Court that section 59A of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution and the High Court was, therefore, right in striking down the said provision. For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are dismissed with costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 504
Issues:
1. Application for stay of execution proceedings under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
2. Interpretation of section 22 in the context of ongoing execution proceedings against a corporation.
3. Requirement of consent from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for further execution proceedings against an industrial company.
Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan addressed a revision petition against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Indore, dismissing an application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner, a judgment debtor, sought a stay of execution proceedings initiated by the respondent decree-holder. The petitioner-corporation issued a cheque to the bailiff of the Court for the decree amount, attempting to halt the execution. The Court held that the provisions of the Act were attracted in the case due to a reference made by the petitioner's company before the BIFR under sections 15, 16, and 17 of the Act. Section 22 prohibits further execution proceedings against an industrial company without the consent of the BIFR. As no consent was obtained by the respondent, the execution proceedings could not proceed.
The respondent argued that since a distress warrant was issued and a cheque was passed for payment, the execution case was rendered infructuous, making the petitioner's application irrelevant. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the execution proceedings were still pending, and the cheque had not been handed over or encashed. The Court emphasized that handing over the cheque to the respondent was part of the execution proceedings, and upon knowing about the reference proceedings to the BIFR, the Court was obligated to suspend further execution unless consented to by the BIFR. The Court found the lower court's decision erroneous in holding that section 22 was not applicable in the case.
Consequently, the revision petition succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed the suspension of further proceedings in the execution case as mandated by section 22 of the Act. No costs were awarded in the matter. The judgment signifies the importance of complying with the statutory provisions of the Act and obtaining necessary consent before proceeding with execution against a sick industrial company, ensuring legal protection and adherence to due process.
............
|
9911796707
