|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 679 Records
-
2007 (2) TMI 626 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... hat he would produce the documents within 48 hours. The said provision is an enabling provision to enable a dealer who for any genuine reason could not hand over a particular document to the driver, to get opportunity of furnishing acceptable explanation and of producing the required document within the aforesaid time. Even in appropriate cases of genuine difficulty, document can be produced even after 48 hours, but before the order of seizure. We have already pointed out that in this case no explanation has been furnished why the invoice was not with the driver particularly when the invoice was supposed to be produced before the check-post authority at the time of getting the way-bill endorsed. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of seizure. However, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion whether the documents produced by the petitioner are genuine or not or on the correctness of the documents relied on by the respondents.
-
2007 (2) TMI 625 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ices and trade circular only. For the reasons aforesaid we are unable to accept that the petitionercompany could/cannot be treated as a dealer under the 1941 Act. We hold the impugned memos/notices as valid. We shall be failing in our duty if we do not record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered and fairness shown by Mr. Bose, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P. Mondal, State Representative. Accordingly this application fails. Interim order is vacated. The concerned authorities are at liberty to proceed in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned notices/memos in accordance with law. If the concerned authorities want to proceed in pursuance of the impugned notices/memos, they will send an intimation fixing a date giving at least four weeks 39 time to the petitioner to submit its case and to produce required documents before the concerned authority. R. K. DEB CHAUDHURI (Judicial Member). - I agree. DEB KUMAR CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2007 (2) TMI 624 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner to pursue its stand before the authority and comply with the requirements. A direction for production of certain documents, etc., cannot by itself be characterized as an act without jurisdiction on the part of the authority functioning under the Act, as for the purpose of verifying as to whether any liability under the Act is being avoided in the guise of any other transactions, the authority has jurisdiction to scrutinize the transaction. Ultimately it is only if the liability is fastened and the transaction is held to be in the nature of sale, the petitioner can be aggrieved. The petitioner cannot object even for a preliminary enquiry or scrutiny into the transactions. Though many other submissions are made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, I think the matter does not warrant interference at this stage. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the authority concerned.
-
2007 (2) TMI 623 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal is vitiated and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the issues, namely, (1) whether the notice under section 21 of the Act was issued before obtaining the approval from the Additional Commissioner and if it is so, what is its effect (2) whether at the time of issue of notice, there was material which led to form a belief that there was escaped assessment and (3) whether in view of the circulars, reason should be recorded and in case, the reason has not been recorded whether it invalidates the proceeding under section 21 of the Act. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the issues as stated above. The applicant may file certified copy of the order and appear before the member Tribunal concerned on February 26, 2007. On that date, the Tribunal may fix the date of hearing. It is made clear that this court has not adjudicated the issue on the merits.
-
2007 (2) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is not open to the revenue authorities to take a different stand. Thus, so long as the circular stands and is not withdrawn revenue authorities cannot take a different stand contrary to the circular. It is not the case of the revenue that the circulars have been withdrawn. Issues involved in the present revisions are squarely covered by the decision of this court in Trade Tax Revision No. 195 of 1998, (Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Bhartya Charmodhyog Sangh, Saket Colony, Agra), decided on February 22, 2007 2008 16 VST 67. referred hereinabove. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, it is held that the applicant was entitled for the exemption on the sale of shoes under the Central Act in view of section 8(2A) of the Central Act being a unit certified by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board. In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11(8) of the Act.
-
2007 (2) TMI 621 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds are omitted to have been shown in the books of account, document or register. In the present case, it is true that the dealer had not produced the books of account before the Trade Tax Officer (SIB) for verification and that raises the doubt but on this basis alone penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act cannot be levied. It was open to the Trade Tax Officer (SIB) that after the inspection of the vehicle, he should have immediately made the survey of the dealer premises and should have checked the books of account or should have summoned the books of account. So far as irregular serial number of the bill is concerned, it appears that no query has been made by the assessing authority in this regard. In view of the fact that the entry of bill No. 26, dated March 12, 1997 was duly found entered in the books of account, levy of penalty was not justified and has rightly been deleted by both the appellate authorities. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Orissa 1983 53 STC 315 (SC) . Having regard to the fact that the original petition assailing the assessment order dated October 31, 2002 was filed on December 26, 2003 and was taken on file on January 12, 2004 and has been entertained by the Tribunal and has been pending since then and on abolition of the Tribunal, transferred to the file of this court and has been pending as writ petition from 2006, this court is of the view that in order to sub-serve the ends of justice, one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority, if so advised. Two weeks 39 time is granted for filing such an appeal against the orders of assessment, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellate authority shall entertain the appeal, if filed within the time given by this court in this order. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 619 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rity on condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1 lakh before the assessing authority. In view of the reasoning stated above, the following order is passed (i) The petitioner is hereby directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh) only to the assessing officer towards tax liability for the assessment year 2000-01 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ii) On such payment, the impugned order is deemed to be set aside and the petitioner is directed to produce the books of account and thereupon the assessing officer is directed to complete the assessment in accordance with law taking into consideration the return filed with reference to the books of account. (iii) If any one of the conditions is defaulted, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the benefits granted in this order. In that case, it is open to the respondent to recover the entire amount in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 618 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t issued in Ref. R. Dis. 60407/93/Acts Cell I, dated September 16, 1993, wherein, it is specifically stated that the request for waiver of liabilities up to March 31, 1993 and not to reopen the past cases of assessments was reasonable and was accepted. The said circular has been ratified by the Government in G.O. (Rt) No. 394 dated June 9, 1998 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted in the previous paragraphs. In view of the circular dated September 16, 1993 and the Government Order dated June 9, 1998, the reopening of the assessments of the petitioners, which had been originally completed, subsequent to the circular dated September 16, 1993 cannot be legally sustainable in law. Hence, the assessments so made subsequent to September 16, 1993 has to be set aside in respect of the additional sales tax only. In the light of the circular dated September 16, 1993 and the Government order dated June 9, 1998, the writ petitions are allowed. There is no order as to costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 617 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 616 of 2003See 2008 14 VST 379 (Orissa).. In the judgment delivered today in the said W.P. (C) No. 5616 of 2003See 2008 14 VST 379 (Orissa)., we have allowed the said writ petition by quashing the minutes of the meeting dated October 23, 2002 taken up by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, with the NALCO and others and declared that the petitioner industry is entitled to avail the sales tax exemption in accordance with the IPR, 1996. Adopting the reasonings given by us in the judgment delivered in aforesaid W.P. (C) No. 5616 of 2003See 2008 14 VST 379 (Orissa)., we allow the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition and quash the minutes of the meeting dated October 23, 2002 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, with the NALCO vide annexure 5C and declare that the petitioner industry is entitled to the sales tax exemption in accordance with IPR, 1996. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. We make no order as to cost. A.K. SAMANTRAY J. - I agree.
-
2007 (2) TMI 616 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been rejected by the respondent without assigning any reason. Any order, for that matter a rejection order has to be passed by giving reasons. Non-speaking order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The same has to be set aside. The notices dated February 28, 2003 and August 9, 2005 challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 35644 and 25944 of 2005, which are consequent to the order of rejection have to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority to reconsider the issue as to the applicability of the G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated December 13, 1992 to the petitioner 39 s case, which is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 35375 of 2005 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Now that the period is already over it is open to the assessing officer to frame the assessment in accordance with the statutory provisions and also proceed further with the relevant assessment years. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. No costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 615 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ansaction has not been examined. The Tribunal has also not considered the reasons given by the assessing authority for rejection of the claim. The assessment order also reveals that the transactions have not been examined in the light of law laid down by the apex court. In the circumstances, order of the Tribunal is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. Since the assessing authority had also not examined each and every transaction relating to the purchases claimed to be made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal in the course of inter-State purchases, it would be appropriate that the matter may be remanded back to the assessing authority with the direction to examine each and every transaction in the light of law laid down by the apex court referred hereinabove. In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass assessment order afresh in the light of observations made above.
-
2007 (2) TMI 614 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of the petitioner by the appellate authority, but the same was not served on him, and on that basis, a request was made to adjourn the matter to November 6, 2006. If that request has been complied with, the impugned orders would not have been passed and orders would have been passed after taking into consideration the appellate authority order. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned revised assessment orders can be set aside and the petitioner can be given an opportunity to place the appellate orders dated October 27, 2006. Hence the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer on March 1, 2007 and place the appellate authority order, his representation if any to revised proposal. If such objection is filed on the day fixed by this court, respondent authority is directed to consider the same and proceed further and pass orders. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2007 (2) TMI 613 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from the company have to be recovered only from the company and not from its directors, by relying on the judgments of various High Courts, such as in the cases of Desiraju Venkatakrishna Sarma, In re, 1955 25 Comp Cas 32 (AP), Lalita Shivaram Ubhaykar v. Commercial Tax Officer, XII Circle, Bangalore 1975 35 STC 267 (Karn), Ramachandran v. State of Kerala 1984 55 STC 209 (Ker), Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Quilon 1985 60 STC 193 (Ker), Nishad Patel v. State of Kerala 1999 113 STC 395 (Ker), Subhash Chandra Kankaria v. State of Rajasthan 1999 114 STC 413 (RTT) and the statutory provision of the TNGST Act. Hence, in the light of the decisions referred to above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned notices are hereby set aside by giving liberty to the assessing officer to proceed further to recover the amount due from the assessee-companies, in accordance with law and statutory provisions. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. No costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 612 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ngs. The decision does not lay down that the recovery of trade tax dues is permissible from the personal assets of the directors. It is not a case of the Government or department that funds of the company have been fraudulently transferred or siphoned off by the petitioners in their capacity as directors. It is also not the case of the respondent-department that the petitioners were personal guarantors for the dues of the company. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that whether the petitioners have resigned or whether they continued as directors and whether the fact of the alleged resignation was or was not communicated to the Trade Tax Department, no recovery of the trade tax dues of the company of which the petitioners were directors can be made from personal assets of the petitioners. The respondents are, therefore, restrained from making any recovery from out of the personal assets of the directors. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed as above.
-
2007 (2) TMI 611 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ngs. The decision does not lay down that the recovery of trade tax dues is permissible from the personal assets of the directors. It is not a case of the Government or department that funds of the company have been fraudulently transferred or siphoned off by the petitioners in their capacity as directors. It is also not the case of the respondent-department that the petitioners were personal guarantors for the dues of the company. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that whether the petitioners have resigned or whether they continued as directors and whether the fact of the alleged resignation was or was not communicated to the Trade Tax Department, no recovery of the trade tax dues of the company of which the petitioners were directors can be made from personal assets of the petitioners. The respondents are, therefore, restrained from making any recovery from out of the personal assets of the directors. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed as above.
-
2007 (2) TMI 610 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of nine per cent over the excess amount retained by the Department. When such statutory provision is there in favour of the petitioner for adjustment and it has also been accepted by the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Salem (North), the excess amount will be adjusted for future assessment and the impugned notice cannot be legally sustainable. It is not as if the petitioner has not paid the amount in due time and as such there is no reason to levy interest for belated payment. For the abovesaid reasons, the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Salem (North), is hereby directed to calculate the returns filed for December 2002 and January 2003 by the dealer with reference to the excess payment accepted by the first respondent in his proceedings above referred to dated March 26, 2002 and thereupon proceed further if there is any amount due from the petitioner to recover the same in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
-
2007 (2) TMI 609 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titions Nos. 3085 and 3086 of 2000, by an order dated January 5, 2007 Reported at 2007 6 VST 399 (Mad). , I have held that a company is a legal entity by itself and it can sue or can be sued as a legal entity and any dues from the company has to be recovered only from the company and not from its directors, by relying on the judgments of various High Courts, such as, the cases in Desiraju Venkatakrishna Sarma, In re 1955 25 Comp Cas 32 (AP), Lalita Shivaram Ubhaykar v. Commercial Tax Officer 1975 35 STC 267 (Karn), Ramachandran v. State of Kerala 1984 55 STC 209 (Ker), Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. District Collector, Quilon 1985 60 STC 193 (Ker), Nishad Patel v. State of Kerala 1999 113 STC 395 (Ker), Subash Chandra Kankaria v. State of Rajasthan 1999 114 STC 413 (RTT). In view of the decisions referred to above, this court is of the view that the notice impugned in this writ petition has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 608 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... esaid we set aside the order dated May 29, 2006 rejecting the petitioner 39 s first application for registration. We direct the respondents to treat the petitioner 39 s second application as continuation of the first application and to make the registration already granted on July 31, 2006 valid from May 29, 2005, i.e., date on which the petitioner was entitled to get registration on the basis of his first application. Necessary endorsement on the registration certificate be made within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. Proceeding for cancellation of the petitioner 39 s registration is directed to be dropped for the present. The petitioner is given time till March 15, 2007 to submit all arrear returns, if any. If the petitioner fails to submit arrear returns by the aforesaid date, the authorities will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for cancellation of registration in accordance with law. DIPAK CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member) - I agree.
-
2007 (2) TMI 607 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssioner in his proceedings dated July 17, 2001. In the given set of facts, I can also take support of the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation reported in 1991 55 ELT 433 (SC) to state that it is not as if the Revenue is left without any remedy. Even assuming for a moment the order of the appellate authority is not in accordance with law, the Revenue can very well take the order on appeal and there are provisions as stated in the earlier paragraphs in which the superior officers are vested with the suo motu powers to call for, rectify the defects, if any, in the orders passed under the provisions of the Act. Of course, as stated by the Supreme Court, in the above said process, there will be some delay in conclusion of the proceedings for that matter, the assessing officer cannot ignore the directions given by the appellate authority. For all the above said reasons, the writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.
............
|
