|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 772 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 812 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he question No. 2 is concerned, both the counsel appearing for parties submitted that this question is already answered by this court in the decisions reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Vippy Solvex Products Pvt. Ltd. 1997 105 STC 394 and National Fertilisers Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1997 106 STC 93. Under these circumstances it is not necessary to call for question No. 2 because it is neither referable nor is it a question which needs to be answered by this court as a question of law. Indeed, once it stands answered on merits by this court, it ceases to be a referable question of law. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, this application succeeds in part. The Tribunal is directed to send a reference under section 44(1) to this court only on question No. 1 referred supra. Let the statement of case be drawn within a period of three months from today by the Tribunal along with all annexures necessary for answering question No. 1. No cost.
-
2005 (2) TMI 811 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mistake of notion, that as the final order in appeal has been passed, the said order cannot be rectified that the impugned order dated April 25, 2001 has been passed. As under the provisions of the Act, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) was empowered to consider and decide the rectification application of the petitioner within the four corners of the powers conferred on him under section 37 of the Act, the refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested by law in the learned Deputy Commissioner does not appear to be correct. Accordingly, while interfering with the order dated April 25, 2001, I direct the learned Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Tinsukia to take the rectification application of the petitioner on record and consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Before passing any order as directed, the learned Deputy Commissioner shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-assessee. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 810 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... NTN 604. S.L.P. against the said order was dismissed by the apex court. The aforesaid decisions of the apex court clearly held that situs, where the title of goods passed, is wholly irrelevant. It is immaterial whether a complete sale precedes the movement of goods or follows the movement of goods or for that matter takes place while the goods are in transit. What is important is that the movement of goods is in pursuance of a prior contract of sale and both the movement of goods and sale must be inseparably connected. In the present case, it is seen that before the movement of goods, the contract of sale was in existence and movement of goods was in pursuance of contract which were used in the works contract, therefore, the transaction was covered by section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the Tribunal has rightly held so. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 809 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liberty to take expert opinion. If required, and to carry out all such inspections and investigations as may be required to enable him to come to the right conclusion. This court has noticed that while entertaining this writ petition, an interim order dated April 5, 2002 had been passed restraining the respondents from realising the tax on the food items in question and at the same time requiring the petitioners to maintain accounts regarding the sale of the three items during the period of pendency of the writ petition. While reiterating the aforesaid interim arrangement, till disposal of the matter by the authority, as directed hereinabove, this court further directs the petitioners to continue to file returns before the competent authority under the Act for the three food items in question, though the assessments in respect of the turnover on the food items shall be kept pending by the assessing authority. Writ petition stands closed in terms of the aforesaid directions.
-
2005 (2) TMI 808 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at again by itself cannot render the rule as either void or ultra vires the provisions of the section. So long as the rule does not provide for creating such a liability, the rule cannot be held as bad or ultra vires. On a reading of the provisions of rule 6(4)(m)(i), I find that the rule by itself does not create any liability but is an enabling provision to reduce the scope of liability. Such a rule cannot be held to be either bad or ultra vires the provisions of the section. Hence, there is no occasion to grant the declaration as sought for by the petitioner or strike down rule 6(4)(m)(i). Accordingly, petitions are dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to pursue all such remedies that are available under the provisions in accordance with the provisions. Rule discharged. If an appeal is filed immediately or within a reasonable time, the appellate authority shall take into consideration the pendency of this writ petition while examining the question of limitation.
-
2005 (2) TMI 807 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... BTT) in support of his contention. He also admitted that the Commercial Tax Officer received the way-bill on January 29, 2005 but as January 29, 2005 and January 30, 2005 were holidays, the date was subsequently changed to January 31, 2005. Considered the submission of both sides. It is quite apparent that the vehicle carrying the consignment of goods entered into the State without getting the way-bill endorsed and this is clearly a violation of the law. Hence, we find no infirmity in the seizure of the goods. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner prays for release of the goods. The seized goods may be released on furnishing a guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000 - 50 per cent of which is to be paid in cash and remaining 50 per cent in bank guarantee in favour of respondent No. 1 which is to be renewed from time to time. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the penalty proceeding before the appropriate forum. The case is thus disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 806 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal, Haryana, vide his order dated August 17, 1994. The application filed under section 42(1) of the Act for referring the aforementioned questions of law to this court, was dismissed by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal vide his order dated April 22, 1999. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also gone through various judgments to which reference has been made in order dated January 7, 1999 passed by the Tribunal declining the applicant 39 s prayer for reference and the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. 2002 126 STC 114. In our opinion, the questions of which determination has been sought by the applicant are substantial questions of law which need determination by this court. Hence, the application is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to refer the aforementioned questions for the opinion of this court. The Tribunal shall submit a statement of case and remit the records to this court.
-
2005 (2) TMI 805 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... does not amount to manufacturing. In the case of Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1991 191 ITR 656 (SC), preservation of the various items in a cold storage has been held not amounting to processing or manufacturing by the apex court. The decisions cited by the learned Standing Counsel are not applicable and are distinguishable. In all the cases, some process was involved and something has been done to the goods causing some change while in the present case nothing has been done to the semen, it remains the same. Therefore, decisions cited by learned Standing Counsel are not applicable to the present case. In my view, semen is also covered under Notification No. ST-7038 dated January 31, 1985 which exempts live stock. Semen is a live cell with nucleus, which on fertilization with ova produces animal. Therefore, being a live stock also it is not liable to tax under the aforesaid notification. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 804 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e. The seizure can be made under sub-rule (5) of rule 214C in case, no way-bill or challan, as the case may be, is produced by the transporter before the seizing officer at the time of transportation of goods. Neither the provisions of section 73 nor rule 214C warrant demand of stock register and other documents as a legal ground for seizure of the goods under transportation. We, therefore, find that the seizing officer acted illegally by violating the provisions of the Act and Rules by seizing the goods in question. The seizure, therefore, in our opinion, is bad and arbitrary. The order of seizure is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the seizure made by respondent No. 1 in respect of the goods in question on January 28, 2005 is set aside. The demand of penalty, therefore, does not stand in the eye of law. The amount of Rs. 70,000 realised for penalty should immediately be refunded to the petitioner. The application is thus allowed without any order for costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 803 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s 1995-96 and 1996-97, no appeals were pending before the appellate authority as on October 3, 2003. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for exemption in respect of the said two assessment years. In respect of the other two assessment years, appeals were pending as on October 3, 2003. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions specified and the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid Scheme. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Kara Samadhana Scheme in respect of the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed in part. The order impugned in so far as the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is quashed. Respondents are directed to grant waiver in terms of Kara Samadhana Scheme in respect of the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The writ petitions are dismissed in respect of the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. No costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 802 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent No.4. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by respondent No.3 and the Tribunal against the stay of demand created by respondent No.4. We are further of the view that respondent No.3 and the Tribunal had virtually shown favour to the petitioner by directing it to deposit the amount of additional demand in instalments and the petitioner has taken undue advantage of the liberal approach adopted by the authorities concerned. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we direct that if the petitioner pays the second instalment on or before February 15, 2005 then the appeal filed by it against the assessment order shall not be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the direction contained in the Tribunal 39 s order dated November 8, 2004. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the remaining instalments strictly in accordance with the time schedule prescribed by the Tribunal.
-
2005 (2) TMI 801 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... rch 22, 2002 (annexure H to A.O.) wrote to AGM (Sales) for sending the goods to Durgapur forwarding of a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000 though according to petitioner, he had no sufficient space there, whereas previous to that by letter dated March 19, 2002 direction was given to IISCO to despatch goods at Shalimar. Therefore, story of finalising the terms of the tenancy of the godown on rental basis in the last part of March, 2002 is baseless. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner had mala fide intention to keep the Revenue in dark regarding his new place for unloading the goods. This is clear violation of section 97 of the Act and is an offence under section 88(h) of the Act, 1994. 12.. We, therefore, find no reason to set aside the order of seizure. The seizure is held to be legal and valid. 13.. The application is, therefore, dismissed without costs. The RN-221 of 2002 for the same reason is dismissed without costs. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 800 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ice by any person including the person aggrieved. The power to have the matter suo motu verified in the authority is not taken away only on the ground that illegality has been brought to his notice by a person. It is different matter whether he will examine the matter or not on merit which he has to decide on the basis of materials available before him. Thus, the very ground given by the authority is non est in the eye of law. 3.. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No. 3 to consider the question afresh. It is made clear that this Court is not saying anything as to whether the respondent No. 3 will exercise his jurisdiction or not. It is for him to consider but he cannot, as stated above, refuse to exercise the power only on the ground that the petitioner has filed a petition bringing to his knowledge the infirmity in an order passed by a lower authority. 4.. In the result, the application is allowed. Application allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 799 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... do not find it necessary to deal with the said decisions in this case. 3.. Mr. Maitra, learned counsel appearing for the State, has just pointed out that the petitioner can at best be given interest at the rate the banks are giving now in the savings bank account. 4.. After due consideration of relevant facts and materials, we are, however, inclined to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the earlier stand of the division Bench of this Court in W.P.T.T. No. 24 of 2001 (printed infra), we think that the petitioner should be given interest at 6 per cent per annum. 5.. The aforesaid amount of interest for the period from September 18, 1997 to October 8, 2004 be paid within three months from the date of communication of this order. 6.. With the above observation this writ application is disposed of. 7.. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for be supplied on priority basis. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 798 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner should be paid interest on the said amount on account of the negligence of the respondents. However, since a review petition was filed against the order passed in revision, we think it proper to exclude the period between the revisional order and the order passed on the review application for the purpose of grant of interest. 10.. Accordingly, we dispose of this application with a direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner simple interest on the amount of penalty between February 10, 1993 when the review application was dismissed and May 24, 1995, when the refund was actually made, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, within one month from date, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to further interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till payment. 11.. There will be no order as to costs. 12.. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 797 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow 1981 48 STC 254 AIR 1981 SC 1656. It was held in the above case that the words used in law imposing tax should be construed in the same way in which they are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force and that if an expression is capable of a wider meaning as well as narrower meaning, the question whether the wider or the narrower meaning should be given depends on the context and background of the case. The Supreme Court held that the process of making an eatable by way of cooking is absent in the business of manufacture and sale of biscuits, even if they are intended for human consumption. The above legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court squarely apply to the instant cases and soda cannot be brought within the entries 40/46 of Schedule I of the KGST Act. In the result, the sales tax revisions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 796 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cated outside the region of Ladakh. It is nobody 39 s case that the petitioners had obtained exemption licence from the competent assessing authority as prescribed under the aforesaid S.R.O./notification. Therefore, the conditions and justifications provided under the aforesaid S.R.O. being not satisfied and attracted, this S.R.O. has no application to the present cases and such of the petitioners who have lifted the goods from the Ladakh region are not entitled to the benefit of exemption either under the General Sales Tax Act or under section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 39.. In view of the detailed discussion, I do not find any merit in these petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. The differential amount of tax deposited by the petitioners before the Registrar Judicial of the High Court under any interim direction of this Court, shall be transmitted to respondents, to be deposited in accordance with the provisions of General Sales Tax Act. Petitions dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 795 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imposed does not automatically bring article 301 into play. And the provisions of article 304(b) are not offended. When the validity of section 38-B and rule 64-A, inter alia, other provisions of Act and Rules were held valid by Supreme Court in case of Tripura Goods Transport Association 1999 112 STC 609 (SC) AIR 1999 SC 719 then petitioners cannot derive benefit of some observations taking the same in isolation by segregating that from the complete observations and text of judgment of the Supreme Court while elaborating the provisions of the Act in respect of observance of procedural formalities provided in para 15 (at 726 of AIR 1999). 22.. In view of the above observations demand of security under rule 64-A by the Commissioner of Taxes for granting registration certificate under section 38-B is legal and well within the scope and is a reasonable exercise of power provided in the Act. The writ petition is devoid of merits as such it is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 794 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ule 25 have been placed before the court to contend that any best judgment assessment has to be preceded by an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The argument advanced is that the materials on record do not disclose that any opportunity of being heard or any notice was issued to the petitioner in the prescribed form (prescribed by rule 25) or in any form whatsoever prior to the exercise of powers under section 17(6) so as to enable the assessee to appear and present his case before the authority. The provisions of section 17(6) of the Act having clearly mandated the requirements of such an opportunity and the same having not been afforded, this Court holds that each of the impugned orders is vitiated in law. Accordingly, while setting aside each of the impugned orders, I leave it open to the concerned authority to complete the assessments in accordance with law. 4.. Writ petition shall stand allowed in terms of the directions indicated above. Writ petition allowed
-
2005 (2) TMI 793 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed. Since the Advance Ruling Authority has not considered any one of the aspects which we have noticed above, we have no other alternative but to set aside the impugned order dated May 26, 2003 and remand the matter to the Advance Ruling Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, keeping in view the settled legal principles enunciated by the apex Court in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000 119 STC 533 and the observations made by us in the course of our order. 18.. Accordingly, the following ORDER - I. Appeal is partly allowed. II. The impugned order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority in No. AR.CLR.CR.73/02-03 dated May 26, 2003 is set aside. III. The matter is remanded back to the Advance Ruling Authority to reconsider the application filed by the appellant-company in accordance with law. IV. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.
............
|
