|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 444 Records
-
1996 (2) TMI 501 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der imposing penalty under exhibit P1 which, as stated earlier, was confirmed by exhibits P4 and P6, was passed without the petitioner being given the copy of the stock register which was taken away by the department as evidenced by exhibit P2. It is also not in dispute that after the assessment orders were passed and when it was questioned by way of an appeal, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the penalty came to be imposed upon the petitioner without his being given an opportunity to verify the records seized by the Intelligence Officer and that the records which were seized by the Intelligence Officer were returned to him only after the penalty proceedings were over. As the petitioner was not furnished with copies of the documents on which he wanted to place reliance to successfully contest the penalty proceedings, I feel, that exhibits P1, P4 and P6 have to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. This O.P. accordingly, is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 500 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is consumed for producing flour or maida or suji, the commodities so obtained are different commodities from wheat. Wheat loses its identity. It gets consumed and in its place new goods/commodities emerge. The new goods so emerging have a higher utility than the commodity consumed. They are different goods commercially speaking. 5.. In the present case also, when pluses and cereals are consumed and papad and badi are prepared out of them, a new commercial commodity comes out. Therefore, it cannot be said to be processed item out of cereals and pulses. An entirely new item emerges which is known in commercial market in its own name. Therefore, badi and papad cannot be said to be processed items. They are manufactured items out of cereals and pulses and they would not fall under clause (ix) of entry 51 of Schedule I and not entitled to exemption from tax. 6.. This reference is therefore answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (2) TMI 498 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ainst the principles of natural justice as the orders of assessment were not served upon him immediately after they are passed and that steps were taken to recover the tax by exhibit P24 dated February 12, 1996. Petitioner submits that he has filed appeals against the said orders of assessment and they are pending. The stay petitions filed by the petitioner are also not disposed of by the third respondent. 3.. Taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration, I feel that there can be a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the stay petitions exhibits P20 to P23 filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and till the disposal of the stay petitions, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the tax covered by exhibits P12 to P15 will stand stayed. This original petition is disposed of with the above directions. Order on C.M.P. No. 5928/1996 in O.P. No. 3428/1996G dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 497 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ught to be referred is whether such an order is binding on the assessing authority? That seems to be the intention of the section 42-B of the Act. In case of circulars, etc., it is held in 1993 90 STC 47 (SC) AIR 1993 SC 2414 (Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer) that such circulars may not be binding on quasi-judicial authorities. 6. In view of the section 42-B and the aforesaid decision, we find that the aforesaid question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and is thus required to be referred for our opinion. 7.. Ex consequenti, we allow this application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the remaining question of law, as noted above, for our opinion within a period of nine months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The application is thus allowed but with no order as to costs. 9.. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal immediately for compliance, as directed. Application allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 496 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ensue as a consequence thereof. As the appellate authority did not take into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal memorandum, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the appellate authority under exhibit P11 has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 2.. Normally this Court will remand the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the stay petition. But on the facts and circumstances of the case I feel that it is not necessary to do so and instead the second respondent can be directed to dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioner within sixteen weeks from today and till the disposal of the appeals the recovery proceedings initiated under exhibits P12 and P12(a) for the recovery of the tax covered by exhibits P3 and P8 will stand stayed. This original petition is disposed of with the above directions. Order on C.M.P. No. 5880 of 1996 in O.P. No. 3380 of 1996B dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 495 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ier stage before the authorities below the Tribunal. We have scrutinised the earlier two orders. There cannot be any difficulty to establish that the commodity is purchased from the planter but there is no whisper of any material in regard to the requirement that such planter would be considered as liable to tax under the provisions of section 5 of the Act. The Tribunal cannot be blamed when there is no material with regard to the liability. The Tribunal is also more than justified that the assessee-the present petitioner is under the burden of proof to establish the tax liability of the planter in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act. There being no material in regard to this vital aspect and in addition the contention having been raised for the first time on the second appellate stage, no fault can be seen for the exercise of powers under section 41 of the Act. These petitions that relate to different assessment years stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 494 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he contention of the petitioner is acceptable as the reasons given are sound. If the sales of food and drinks in the canteen run by the assessee is to be granted exemption by operation of the Government notification, then out of the total turnover, what has to be deducted is the value of sale of food and drinks in the canteen run by the society, provided such sales in the canteen does not exceed the limit prescribed under the notification. It is not a question of there being two total turnovers. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the sale of food and drinks in the canteen attached to the co-operative society is eligible to avail the benefit under the notification. The recovery proceedings are therefore ordered to be dropped. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 28th day of February, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 493 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... receipt showing the deposit of the full amount of the tax due on the basis of the return as the tax was deposited only on February 4, 1988. Therefore, the return cannot be said to have been filed in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules and even if the return unaccompanied by the receipt was filed as claimed through U.P.C. the assessing authority was not bound to take cognizance of that return. In this view of the matter whether the return sent by post U.P.C. as claimed by the applicants reached the assessing authority or not is immaterial. No return as required under the Rules can be said to have been validly filed till the date of the making of the assessment order, viz., July 12, 1989. Delay in filing the return by 528 days has been correctly computed and the penalty of Rs. 5,280 for delay in filing of return has been correctly imposed. In view of the above, the application for revision has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 492 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ticularised above consequences are not required to be left to imagination. In the orders it is also found that strenuous attempts on the part of those who deal in petroleum products thrive on a neat difference of 15 per cent as regards the levy of taxation when compared to the one at Mahe and the State of Kerala has been an open situation and is no longer a secret of a clandestine character. There is no material even in the nature of a whisper as regards lack of fairness and reasonableness or the presence of any material of bias and lack of bona fides. The appellate authority has carefully considered and modified the order as stated above. In this situation not only that it is not possible to interfere, taking into consideration the limits of our power, but even independently we do not find that there is any error with regard to the resort to estimation by a process of best judgment assessment. For the above reasons the tax revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 491 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods transported are sold or purchased in the State of Bihar, any action in the exercise of power under sub-section (2b) and sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Act for mere contravention of sub-section (2a) of section 31 of the Act, will be illegal and without jurisdiction. 21.. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are allowed in part and the impugned proceedings as well as the orders passed in the exercise of power under sub-section (2b) and sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Act are quashed. Penalty realised from the petitioners, if any, shall be refunded to them by the respondents within a period of one month from today. I have not found it necessary to consider all the points raised in these writ petitions. That being so, it will remain open to the petitioners to raise the points in future which are not considered in this judgment. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. GURUSHARAN SHARMA. -I agrees. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 490 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the decision of the Tribunal. This observation, we think is sufficient to dispel the apprehension of the petitioner. The learned Additional Solicitor-General put forward an argument in passing that the movement of goods which has emanated from Andhra Pradesh State must, in truth and substance, be treated as a movement taking place from Trichy, etc., because the movement from Hyderabad is for and on behalf of the executing units at Trichy, etc. We find no substance in this contention which the learned counsel himself, realising the limitations of such argument, did not proceed to take to its logical end. The movement which is contemplated under section 9(1) is obviously the physical or factual movement but not a notional or fictional movement. There is no basis to dub that movement as one that emanated from a different State. In view of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and dismiss the T.R.Cs. We make no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 489 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Union of India 1982 50 STC 67 has no relevance in context of the territorial jurisdiction because the Delhi High Court merely quashed the assessment orders passed by the sales tax authorities of Delhi and directed refund. There was some debate before us as to the manner in which the tax refundable by other States is to be worked out. While the learned Additional Solicitor General suggested that the debit note value instead in invoice value is the proper criterion, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu has submitted that care should be taken to see that the invoice value does not exceed the total consideration received from the buyer. As we are not issuing any directions to the States concerned for the refund or transfer of the tax illegally collected, we are not called upon to decide the basis on which the refundable tax should be quantified. Subject to the observations made hereinabove, we dismiss the writ petitions. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 488 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x) of the said notification reads as under Agricultural implements worked with the aid of power that is to sayentry (ix)- Centrifugal pumps . It is luculent that monoblocks sold by the assessee are centrifugal pumps and, therefore, according to the said notification are exigible at 3 per cent instead of 5 per cent. The Tribunal did not maintain the consistency and took the different views in different cases though based on identical facts. One such illustration is quoted above. 15.. We are satisfied that the monoblocks are covered by the aforesaid notification and are thus exigible to 3 per cent tax. 16.. Consequently we answer both the questions, as noted above, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 17.. This reference application is decided in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. 18.. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal for further action, as may be necessary. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1996 (2) TMI 487 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve been supplied to the contractor on specific rate for execution of the works contract, it is settled that the goods did not pass to the contractor and the same could not amount to sale within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Act. In the result the revision is disposed of with the direction that the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) will decide the case ignoring the observations made by the Tribunal before the operative portion of the judgment and examine the documents referred in the judgment of the Tribunal after the due notice to the parties and after examining the facts of the documents, will decide the case applying the principles laid down by this Court is Hindustan Housing Factory 1989 75 STC 233 (1989) UPTC 468 and Ansal Properties 1989 UPTC 1366 and the observations made in this judgment. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as provided under section 11(8) of the Act for passing consequential order.
-
1996 (2) TMI 486 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Balaji 1993 88 STC 98 does rest on different facts and that cannot be said to be the law laid down under article 141 for the purposes of this case at hand. The assessing authority issued impugned notices dated March 28, 1995 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 taking the view that the purchases of the old PVC shoes and chappals constitute the purchases of waste products in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Balaji 1993 88 STC 98. In the light of the foregoing decision, we hold that the impugned notices dated March 28, 1995 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) relating to the aforesaid years are not legal and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned notices dated March 28, 1995 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) relating to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 are quashed. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 485 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... diate or remote. If during the period of 24 days the amount to the tune of Rs. 40,000 approximately can be evaded, the enormity can be left to reasonable imagination in regard thereto. Even the process revealed omission to issue sale bills to cover up the unaccounted arrival of high speed diesel and petrol from the Mahe concern. In regard thereto it has already been observed that it is an open secret and a well-known fact that the concerned stock destined for Mahe which is nearer to Thalassery are made available for diversion to the State of Kerala and this is because of the tax difference. It is also observed that the tax difference is 15 per cent and therefore the profit as a result of this clandestine affair is not difficult to imagine. Therefore for the above reasons, even acting independently of ourselves, it is not possible to deal with the question of quantum in any other way than dealt with by the authorities below. The petition stands dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 484 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment (3) that the petitioner-company shall continue to pay the rest of the amount exclusive of the amount of penalty and the amount already paid, in instalments as per the direction which respondent No. 1 gave vide his order of September 23, 1995 (4) that on the petitioner-company giving the security as mentioned in direction No. 1 as also paying the amount of instalments as mentioned in direction No. 3 above the department shall withdraw the attachment order it had issued to the RSEB, Jaipur (5) that respondent No. 2 while deciding the appeal shall not be influenced in any manner whatever by the observations wittingly or unwittingly, consciously or unconsciously made in the impugned order of April 21, 1995 and/or in this judgment and (6) that we make no order as to costs. MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. (Chairman).-I agree. R.K. NAIR (Technical Member).-I agree. Petition partly allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 483 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s fairly indicated that tax can deducted at source not only on the basis of the prescribed rate but also in the manner. While making the said provision, definitely, the Legislature had in its mind certain manners. It is also an established principle of law that Legislature do not use any expression which is unnecessary and redundant. Taking the plain meaning from section 27(b) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that some manner regarding deduction of tax has to be prescribed. As this has not been done, in my opinion, no tax can be deducted at source in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside and quash the action of respondents deducting the sales tax at source from the bills payable to the members of the petitioner-association. However, I make it clear that the authority after prescribing the manner shall be at liberty to deduct tax at source. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 482 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o be found applied by the court in connection with the controversy, it would be of no help. The learned counsel contended that the furniture has to be understood as personal chattels in the use of a family and has to be relating ordinarily to movable personal chattels. 8.. In our judgment furniture has to be understood as considered above. A T.V. set and a fridge can never be understood as items of furniture, but are generally understood as electric gadgets. The items in regard to which dispute is raised will have to be understood as accessories thereto there being crystal clear position that these items by themselves have no meaning and use in the context as independent items. 9.. In our judgment the petitioner is not entitled to contend for acceptance that these items would have to be considered as items of furniture. The decision cited does not govern the situation under consideration before us. For the above reasons the revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 481 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ommissioner had jurisdiction to pass the revisional order. But the next question which arises for consideration is that whether this order on face of it can be sustained. By the impugned order the valuable right of the petitioner is being taken away. The order which is quoted above is absolutely a cryptic one passed without any reason whatsoever and such an order cannot be sustained in judicial review. After all the Commissioner is exercising the quasi-judicial power and in exercise of quasi-judicial power, he has to give reasons in support of the order, but that was not done in the instant case. Accordingly, on this ground, the order passed by the Commissioner vide annexure XXV shall stand quashed and the whole matter shall go back to the Commissioner to pass an appropriate reasoned order after giving hearing to the parties. This shall be done within a period of three (3) months from today. 7.. The writ application is disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
............
|
