|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 587 Records
-
2004 (4) TMI 564 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the acrylic (cashmelon) yarn is covered by the expression of yarn of all kinds . Now the question arises as to whether badh (baan) is yarn or not. Badh (baan) as found by the fact-finding authorities is used mainly for the purposes of weaving cots. In this connection it may also be mentioned here that subsequently the State Government had issued a notification exempting badh (baan) - Badh (baan) made of kaans, moonj, sunn and sunnai with effect from November 1, 1991 . Baan itself is a finished product and is not yarn as it does not satisfy the second condition of yarn as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarin Textile Mills 1975 35 STC 634 1975 UPTC 429. Badh (baan) is not primarily meant for use in weaving, therefore, it is not a yarn. It will not fall either under the entry No. 55 or entry No. 25. Therefore it is taxable as unclassified item. In the result the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the assessment order is restored back.
-
2004 (4) TMI 563 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd carried the goods to Nepal. In view of these facts sale is complete in all respects at Varanasi and purchaser was free to carry the goods to Nepal. The selling dealer retained no control over the goods. There is no link between the agreement to sale and export. They do not form part of the same transaction. There is no bond between the contract and sale and actual transportation. Sale by the assessee, therefore, cannot be considered to be in the course of export. There is no evidence to show that the buyer was under an obligation to take away the goods outside India and the goods were purchased in pursuance of the agreement to export the goods. In the result I find sufficient force in the argument of learned Standing Counsel that the goods were not purchased in the course of export. In the result both the revisions are allowed. The orders of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal for both the assessment years are set aside. The assessment orders are restored back.
-
2004 (4) TMI 562 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oard in this behalf. In the present revision the challenge is not to any recovery proceeding under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, but the issue involved herein is about the maintainability of the first appeal in view of section 9(1B) of the Act. The learned counsel could not show me as to how and in what manner the ratio given in the case of Tata Davy 1998 111 STC 462 (SC) 1997 7 JT SC 216 has any application to the facts of the present case. There appears to be no similarity of the facts and with regard to the points of determination in both the cases one in hand and another cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant even in the recall proceedings was permitted to argue the revision at length, but could not show me any statutory provision or principle of law to give a go by to the provisions of section 9(1B) of the Act in the facts of the present case. In the result there is no merit in the application. The application is dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 561 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... kthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1985 59 STC 52 has been overruled in Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1997 106 STC 433 (SC). Learned counsel also placed reliance on another ruling reported in Yeshaswi Cashew v. State of Karnataka 2001 124 STC 465, which is a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court. That was a matter arising under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (25 of 1957). We find that the provisions in this Act are identical to the provisions in the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. In fact, in this case, the Division Bench relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer 2001 248 ITR 417. Thus, this ruling certainly will not help the petitioner to substantiate its submission. From the above discussion, we are of the view that there are no merits in this writ petition. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Connected W.P.M P. is closed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has examined the matter in great detail. In case of disagreement with the finding of the assessing authority or of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal should have dealt with that aspect of the case on which the authorities below had placed reliance. It is open to the Tribunal to take a different view but not without taking into consideration those aspects of the case which were taken into consideration by the authorities below. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal on this issue for both the assessment years are liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of observations made above as well as in the light of facts on the record of the case. In the result both the revisions are allowed and the two orders of the Tribunal both dated November 30, 1991 with respect to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 (Central) on the aforesaid two points are set aside. The Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh, as indicated above.
-
2004 (4) TMI 559 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of Sales Tax v. State Trading Corporation of India 1999 UPTC 1024. In these cases it has been held that where the registered dealer realised purchase tax and deposited the same, no penalty can be levied under section 15A(1)(qq) of the Act. In the present case there is no clear-cut material on record to conclude that the dealer applicant has deposited the tax, thus realised. A reference was made by learned counsel of a chart given on page 69 of the paper book. From this chart it is difficult to record any such definite finding. However, it is open to the department to verify this fact from the record. If ultimately this finds to be incorrect it will be open to the department to recover the amount of tax, thus realised by the dealer for the month of October, 1999 under U.P. and Central. The dealer shall have no right to take any objection on this count. In the result both the revisions are allowed subject to the observation made above and the orders of penalty are set aside.
-
2004 (4) TMI 558 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... CR 615 AIR 1970 SC 508 where cane jaggery and palm jaggery were treated as two different commodities. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is by a Constitution Bench consisting of five honourable judges. In view of the above it cannot be said that the chassis of a motor vehicle and motor vehicle with body mounted over it are commercially the same thing. The mention of bodies, chassis of motor vehicle in the same entry does not mean, as held above that they all constitute one commodity. The dealer-opposite party made the purchases of body and chassis separately from different persons by issuing form III-A meaning thereby it undertook to resell them in the same form and condition. Having failed to do so, the liability to purchase tax on the purchases of body and chassis, under section 3AAAA of the Act is clearly attracted. In view of the above the revision is partly allowed, as indicated above. The Tribunal to pass the consequential order under section 11(8) of the Act.
-
2004 (4) TMI 557 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... . In a case, reported in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer 1994 94 STC 422, the Supreme Court held that the provisions for interest is to be construed as substantive law and not machinery provision. Interest would not be levied from the date of filing of returns on the amount of tax determined on final assessment but it is payable after the expiry of the period specified in the notice of demand. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, considering the settled principles of law we hold that interest can be charged only after service of the demand notice. The impugned order dated January 27, 2004 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, in our view, therefore, is not sustainable under law. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Deputy Commissioner, therefore is directed to act in accordance with law. The application is thus allowed without costs. S.S. CHATTOPADHYAY, (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2004 (4) TMI 556 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r. In the case in hand there is also no dispute about the rate of tax or classification of goods. Therefore, on facts, the present is nearer to the facts of Qureshi Crucible Centre 1993 89 STC 467 (SC) 1993 UPTC 901. Learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party has placed reliance upon another judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation 2002 127 STC 258 1999 UPTC 1. The said judgment is distinguishable as there was classification dispute with regard to commodity which is ordinarily resolved in assessment proceeding and if resolved against the assessee he is to make payment of difference amount of tax as required by section (1A) of section 8 of the Act. In view of the above I find sufficient force in the revision. The revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal as well as of the first appellate authority so far as it relates to deletion of interest under section 8(1) of the Act is concerned, is set aside.
-
2004 (4) TMI 555 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t commodities, and Venkataraman v. State of Madras 1970 25 STC 196 (SC) 1970 1 SCR 615 AIR 1970 SC 508, where cane jaggery and palm jaggery were treated as two different commodities. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is by a Constitution Bench consisting of five honourable Judges. In view of the above it cannot be said that the chassis of a motor vehicle and motor vehicle with body mounted over it are commercially the same thing. The mention of bodies, chassis of motor vehicle in the same entry does not mean, as held above that they all constitute one commodity. The dealer-opposite party made the purchases of body and chassis separately from different persons by issuing form III-A meaning thereby it undertook to resell them in the same form and condition. Having failed to do so, the liability to purchase tax on the purchases of body and chassis, under section 3-AAAA of the Act is clearly attracted. In view of the above the revision is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (4) TMI 554 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... said case has rejected the contention of the dealer that since in respect of such goods dealer has deposited tax before transferring the stock to the depots on the raw material no penalty is leviable. In the aforesaid case this court has clarified the position that whether the goods have been purchased at concessional rate of tax or not has to be seen with reference to point of time when purchase was made. If later on the dealer deposits the tax because of the situation that it intended to make the consignment sale, it cannot be said that the purchase was not at the concessional rate. Sri. Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party has asked me to see para 9 of the aforesaid judgment. I have already dealt with this point in the earlier part of the judgment. In the result revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded to the Trade Tax Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of observations made above.
-
2004 (4) TMI 553 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... les Tax Act, 1969 has held that Jet Mat is mosquito repellent. In Gujarat there is specific entry No. 129 of mosquito repellent. It has been held to be mosquito repellent mats and not as insecticide. 5.. One of the constituents of Jet mats as mentioned in the judgment is d-Allethrin 4 per cent . In that case also the certificate of registration in favour of the appellant issued under section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, the leaflet and the approved label of the commodity in question, the formulation contents of the said commodity and the chemistry of the active ingredients were submitted. Even then it was considered to be mosquito repellent and not as insecticide or pesticides. On the same reasoning the kachhuwa chap agarbatti cannot be held to be insecticides or pesticides. It is used as a mosquito repellent and not as mosquito killer. 6.. In view of above, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 552 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... point No. (i) mentioned in paragraph (4) above. So the rate of tax applicable to the appellants entire sales inside the State, other than of rubber wood purchased from unregistered dealers for Rs. 1,01,039 could be only 2.5 per cent. The following statements are produced herewith (i) Statement of Trading Account for 1997-98, and (ii) Statement of purchases made during the year from the Kerala Government Forest Depots with copies of bills. 12.. These factual situations are not disputed by the Revenue before the Tribunal or before us. It is in the above circumstances the Tribunal has held in paragraph 5 of the appellate order that in the impugned case the rate of tax leviable on timber if sold in the State is 2.5 per cent plus surcharge . This view, according to us, accords with the view which we have already taken. We do not think that any interference is called for with the findings entered by the Tribunal. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 551 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s sulphur to a great extent varying from 85 per cent to 87 per cent. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon a report submitted by Shri Ram Institute for Research certifying that the sulphur sludge contains sulphur around 82.7 per cent. The said report is by an expert body and its contents have not been disputed or controverted or doubted by the department in any manner. In view of the words all kinds of minerals used in the notification in question sulphur sludge still remains mineral. At the most it can be said that the sulphur sludge is not 100 per cent sulphur. Nonetheless, nobody disputed that it is sulphur as the contents of sulphur are more than 80 per cent as certified by the expert body. Keeping in view that all kinds of minerals are taxable at the rate of four per cent, the sulphur sludge be taxed as mineral accordingly, and not as an unclassified item. 8.. In my view there is no legal error in the order of the Tribunal. The revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 550 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... additional tax under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act and, accordingly, the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga, for charging 8 per cent sales tax and 1 per cent additional tax as well as the order passed by the District Magistrate to deposit the said amount in the Government Treasury towards tax are unjustified and illegal for the reason that the petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act and, accordingly, they are quashed. 12.. In the result, this writ application is allowed and it is held that the State has no authority to charge sales tax or additional tax with regard to the transactions in question and, accordingly, 8 per cent sales tax and 1 per cent additional tax, deducted from the bills of the petitioner, should be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Writ application allowed
-
2004 (4) TMI 549 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s. 4.15. The contractor will deploy expert professionally qualified and experienced personnel, satisfactory to company, and provide the service in professional manner following safe oil field practice in an environmentally friendly manner. 5.4. Company shall provide space at its yard, to keep the crane and other equipments, fuel, etc., for contractor, but company will not take any responsibility for the security of these materials. 14.. In view of the law, as stated above, and considering the terms and conditions of the contract, we hold that the petitionercompany is not liable to pay sales tax on the said contract for providing crane services and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice issued by the respondent, Sales Tax Department, stands quashed and the respondent, Oil India Ltd., is directed not to deduct the tax under section 27 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act. W.P. (C) No. 1061 of 1999 stands allowed. 15. Costs easy. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 548 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion to hold that the jurisdiction of entertain to suo motu is available to the competent authority within a period of eight years from the date of final assessment order or date of final disposal of the revision, if any and liability of the dealer to preserve the documents will be accordingly eight years from the above period and thereafter the respondent authority will be debarred from taking any adverse view for non-production of the documents. 10.. In the present case, the revision was admitted and decided more than after expiry of eight years of the financial assessment order and as such, we hold that the impugned order dated July 12, 2000 was passed without jurisdiction and accordingly, it is set aside. The order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Zone-C and subsequent order dated October 10, 2000 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-D Guwahati, also stands quashed. 11.. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2004 (4) TMI 547 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the fact that the dealer in the sale vouchers has mentioned the product as kachri and that in the registration certificate, the registration was sought by way of amendments for the purpose of manufacture of kachri (namkeen). To my mind these circumstances are wholly irrelevant and should not have been taken into account as they are in the nature of self-serving statement. 9.. In view of the above the product in question cannot be called kachri. It is not covered by the aforesaid notification in view of the fact that kachri as generally understood is a preparation of rice. I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that since the product in question has been prepared out of maida is not understood in common parlance as kachri and was rightly taxed as namkeen by the first appellate authority. 10.. In the result both the revisions are allowed to the extent indicated above and the order of the Tribunal is set aside accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 546 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... business it is a matter for consideration by the assessing authority concerned as to whether the petitioners can be given a certificate periodically to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Notification S.R.O. No. 7 of 2002 insofar as the sales tax liability is concerned and if any such certificate is obtained from the assessing authority and carried with the consignment the check-post authorities, after inspecting the goods and on finding that the goods under consignment are day-old chicks, will release the goods on the petitioners filing a statement containing all the required particulars without insisting for payment of entry tax on the respective consignments. However, the sales tax authority under the Act can demand security deposits to ensure that in case the demand is sustained ultimately the same can be recovered from the petitioners. This is only by way of interim measure. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. Writ petitions disposed of.
-
2004 (4) TMI 545 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. In the case of Moon Rock And Marble Company v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1995) 1 MLJ 572, it is held by this Court that what is expressed in the judgment should be considered as a binding proposition of law and what is not expressed cannot be taken into account. 31.. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the division Bench judgment, with which reliance has been made by the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the discussion made above with reference to the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, particularly, sections 4 and 11, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
............
|
