|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 474 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 503 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner as well as the Tribunal but was rejected. Whatever material or information had been collected by the Assessing Authority, that does not appear to be an invalid piece of evidence as that had been collected from proper source and was relevant to the transactions under consideration. It would be, therefore, not possible to hold that the information collected by the Assessing Authority was not in the nature of legal evidence. The material was relevant to the matter in dispute and could not be said to be no evidence in the eye of law. As already said, the question about the denial of opportunity to the assessee is not before us inasmuch as the relevant question (question No. 2) has not been referred for opinion and, therefore, is not available for the purpose of opinion. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1996 (7) TMI 502 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d that as the tax under the Act was yearly and had to be paid on the taxable turnover of a dealer, then the exemption, whenever it came in, in the year for which the tax was payable, would exempt sales of those goods throughout the year, unless the Act said that the notification was not to have this effect, or the notification fixed the date for the commencement of the exemption. As noted above, in the instant case, there is nothing in the Act which prohibits grant of exemption under section 9 of the Act for the whole year of assessment and in the notification no date is specified from which it would operate. Therefore, it follows that G.O. Ms. No. 116 dated 8th February, 1989 would exempt the turnover for the whole year commencing from 1st of April and ending with 31st of March. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the T.R.Cs. The T.R.Cs. are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 501 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in case the report of the officer to whom the warrant is entrusted is that the assessee did not possess either movable or immovable property, the learned Magistrate cannot proceed to introduce a new theory and impose a sentence which is nowhere provided, default clause can only be invoked in cases where an accused is sentenced to pay a fine and in default to suffer imprisonment and at any rate not in a case arising out of an application under section 13 of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for recovery of the arrears of tax due by the assessee. The order thus suffers both from illegality and irregularity and therefore not sustainable in law. 6.. In the result, revision is allowed. Order impugned dated July 31, 1993 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Magistrate with a direction to take the file in its original number and proceed to dispose it of keeping in mind the observations made during the course of the order and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tions and as and when such representations are made, the competent authorities shall consider them on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, with further avenues of remedies open to them, thereafter. (h) In cases where the petitioners have filed writ petitions against final orders-assessment or reassessment or escaped assessment under section 16 of the TNGST Act, such petitioners shall have thirty days time from today to file their appeals/revisions, as are permissible in law and on their so presenting the appeal/revision, the concerned authorities shall consider the matter on merits, without placing the obstacle of limitation or delay against them and in accordance with law. (i) All the above writ petitions shall stand finally disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 41.. In view of the final orders passed in the writ petitions, no further or separate orders are necessary in the W.M.Ps. and hence, they are closed. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (7) TMI 499 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Rule 16(2) of the employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 and Regulations 12(2) and 13(1) of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1959
Held that:- Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing Committee dated May 24, 1968, to the extent they empower the director General to further delegate the powers or duties delegated to him by the Corporation or the Standing Committee under a resolution referable to Section 94-A have to be held to be invalid.
the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside insofar as it strikes down the words "or any other authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Director General" in Regulation 12(2) and the words "or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may" in Regulation 13(1) of the Regulations and quashes the orders dated May 10, 1974 and April 9, 1981 passed by the Director General, the memoranda dated October 20, 1983, January 21, 1985 and July 18/25, 1986 and the order dated March 18, 1987, Rule 16(2) and the resolution of the Standing Committee, to the extent they empower the Director General to delegate the powers or duties delegated to him under any resolution of the Corporation or the Standing Committee referable to Section 94-A, Are invalid but the rest of the said Rule and the resolution are valid. As a result, the applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal are dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 498 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the petitioner argued that since the body of the buses sold by the assessee had already suffered tax at 15 per cent at the time of first sale in the State, levy of tax at 15 per cent on the sale of the body of the buses was not permissible. Factually this plea is not available to the assessee. As already noticed, the assessee after purchasing the chassis had been building the bodies itself. The bodies have not, therefore, suffered any sales tax earlier. The Tribunal noticed that the corporation itself builds the bodies for the buses and they have not suffered any tax. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in that behalf. 5.. After considering the matter in its totality, we find that the detailed order given by the Tribunal is based on material available on the record and is supported by cogent reasons. No case is made out for interference and consequently, the revisions fail and are dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 497 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rut - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 272 (Tri.) it had been argued on behalf of the appellants that all the details of production and clearances were available to the Central Excise and they could not say that there was anything they did not know or did not have to arrive at any conclusion that they might need to arrive. The Tribunal did not accept this contention of the appellants and observed that to have all the details of clearances, production, etc, is not the same thing as having a sheet or statement or a declaration for a particular purpose designed to meet that one purpose. 18. emsp The duty evaded in proceedings in Appeal No. E-1878/85 A is Rs. 21,90,190.75 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- had been imposed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of penalty imposed is reasonable. 19. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account and in the light of our above discussion, both these appeals are rejected and the impugned orders are confirmed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (7) TMI 496 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat/Cenvat - Input ... ... ... ... ..... f department and upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal noticed that modvat eligibility of electrodes has been accepted by the Tribunal in some decisions namely 1992 (59) E.L.T. 127, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 172, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 424. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal the department preferred the Reference Application before the Tribunal for referring a question of law, that is, whether the CEGAT can exercise of its appellate power overriding the Central Excise Rules by allowing modvat credit under Rule 57A on parts of the machinery which is otherwise not admissible under sub-rules. The Tribunal held that the following question of law arises for consideration and refer same to High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Whether exclusion of machine, machinery, plant, equipment, tools under clause (i) of the explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would cover exclusion of parts of the machine, machinery, plant equipment, tool.
-
1996 (7) TMI 495 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Deemed public companies ... ... ... ... ..... ors, defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for the debt in question. That being so, it cannot be said that defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are not necessary parties to the case. It is a different matter that after taking evidence and on evaluation thereof the court may arrive at a different conclusion but all that is to be decided after trial and not at this stage. Section 45 of the Companies Act speaks of the personal liability of the directors of the company in a given situation. The section is not exhausted. It does not say that in no other case the directors of the company can be made severally liable. It is for the plaintiff being dominus litus, to choose persons of his choice to be sued. If he ultimately fails in establishing his claim against defendants Nos. 2 to 5 not only his suit may be dismissed, he may be saddled with costs. No interference is, however, called for at this stage . The revision thus fails and is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 489 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Power to search premises ... ... ... ... ..... e Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which is enacted for the purpose of regulating the foreign exchange, which is in the interest of the nation, it is necessary to maintain secrecy with regard to the information received by the officials engaged in investigation into violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In order to satisfy myself whether deviation was necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act, I have perused the records which reveal that investigation is pending against the petitioner and there was material to show that search and seizure of documents which will be necessary and useful for the investigation had to be seized. In the face of the record produced by the learned standing counsel for respondents it has to be held that there was justification for the deviation in carrying out the purpose of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no grounds to issue the writ which is prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 482 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the making of photostat copies with the use of a xerox or other machine and delivering the copies so taken to the customer on receipt of payment amounts to a sale of goods exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The contract between the appellant and the payer of the price to him is a contract of work or service, not a contract of sale upon which sales tax is exigible.
-
1996 (7) TMI 476 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Transfer of shares ... ... ... ... ..... that the buy-back agreement between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 20-12-1984, would have the effect of overriding article 13 of the articles of association in the present case. Moreover, plaintiff No. 1, though present in the meeting held on 30-6-1995, did not object to the transfer of shares of defendant No. 1 to the promoters of the company, namely, defendant Nos. 3 to 5. Thus, plaintiff No. 1 waived his right to invoke the provisions of article 13 ibid. 23. For the reasons recorded above, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the interim injunction prayed for in the circumstances of the case. Their prayer to that effect is consequently declined and the application filed by them for that purpose is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the observations, reasons and findings hereinbefore will not be deemed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and will have no bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit.
-
1996 (7) TMI 474 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Of company official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... be obtained, in my view, does not amount to irregularity so as to affect the sale particularly when no higher offer could be brought by the secured creditors. In fact, in the instant case, repeated opportunity was given to the applicant secured creditor to bring higher offer or match the offer of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. so there could be bid in court as already noted but no offer could be procured by the secured creditor. 60. Accordingly in my view no purpose will be served by passing an order for fresh sale. 61. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this application is dismissed. 62. There will be no order as to costs. 63. All interim orders stand vacated. 64. The Official Liquidator will retain his cost from the funds in his hands. 65. In view of the order passed today the other connected application is also dismissed. 66. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. SCL q MAY 5, 1998
-
1996 (7) TMI 464 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... ion passed in civil suits to the subordinate court. It is not, therefore, necessary that the transferee court also should be a company court. Any such contention would practically amount to flying in the face of section 199. It is difficult to accept the contention that the expression in the same manner relates only to the procedure and does not authorise the District Court to execute the order. Section 199 does not indicate any such distinction. It clearly states that it may be enforced in the same manner in which decrees of civil courts made in any suits pending therein may be enforced. The word manner , in my opinion, is comprehensive enough to include a subordinate court which can execute the order if such an order is transferred for enforcement by this court in its jurisdiction as company court. No other contention was raised. In view of my finding that the court below has got jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 463 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Court – Jurisdiction of, Share capital - Further issue of ... ... ... ... ..... y to the public policy. Not only is such construction of statute contrary to law if the contract results into a situation nullifying the effectiveness of the operative orders of the court which are binding on the parties and which the parties are under obligation to obey and under which the parties are to act or forbear from doing such acts, then any contract which comes into existence stultifying the object for which court is empowered to issue order, would be contrary to public policy also and would be void under section 23 of the Contract Act. Thus, viewed from all angles, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by learned counsel for the company that any transaction brought into existence in defiance of the operative injunction order, its validity is not affected and the same must be given full effect. For the reasons aforesaid, we confirm the finding of the learned company judge on this question also. Accordingly, the cross-objection fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1996 (7) TMI 462 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Courts - Jurisdiction of, ... ... ... ... ..... h are not expressly made subject to the jurisdiction of the Company Court, the Company Law Board, the Magistrate or the Central Government. 16. Similar is the view taken by this and some of the other High Courts in Mylavarapu Ramakrishna Rao v. Mothey Krishna Rao 1947 17 Comp. Cas.63(Mad.), Thiruvalluvar Velanmai Kazhagam (P.)Ltd v. M.K. Seethai Achi 1988 64 Comp. Cas. 304 (Mad.), R. Prakasam v. Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam 1980 50 Comp. Cas. 611 (Ker.), Rajendran Menon v. Cochin Stock Exchange 1965 1 Com. Law Journal 573, Prakash Roadlines Ltd. v. Vijaya Kumar Narang 1995 83 Camp. Cas. 569 (Kar.), Avanthi Explosives (P.) Ltd v. Principal Subordinate Judge 1987 62 Comp. Cas. 301 (AP) and Maharaja Exports v. Apparels Exports Promotion Council 1986 60 Comp. Cas. 353 (Delhi). 17. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, this company petition is dismissed. Company application 47/96 is also dismissed. SCL q SEPTEMBER, 1997
-
1996 (7) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT
Enforcement officers, appointment and powers of, Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents
-
1996 (7) TMI 460 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suits, etc., stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... fficult to recover. The learned advocate submits that in these circumstances the respondents should be permitted to carry on with the execution proceedings and if he is unsuccessful there, he should be permitted also to take appropriate proceedings by way of prosecution against the petitioner if the same is competent on the facts of this case. Those aspects are within the ambit of the company court and if the respondent satisfies the court that this is a valid case in which the litigation should be permitted to continue or that further steps be sanctioned, the court will examine the application and pass appropriate orders. The respondent is, however, granted the liberty of moving that court for this purpose. With these directions, the present civil revision petition to stand disposed of. It is clarified that if the company court sanctions it, the execution proceedings before the trial court may then be continued with. Civil revision petition disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 459 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... ple that leave should be granted ordinarily where the claim is of a nature which cannot be investigated into by the company court or the judge dealing with company matters has been recognised. In the present case, the application for leave can under section 446(1) be only granted in respect of the suit against the company and there can be no question of granting leave for a suit against other parties. Having regard to the nature of controversy and the fact that even outsiders are involved in the dispute with the company, it is desirable that the dispute against the company should be decided in the action which is already instituted against the company. Leave is, therefore, granted to the applicant to proceed with Arbitration Suit No. 17 of 1989 in the court of the Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad against the company. The fees of counsel appearing for the official liquidator are quantified at Rs. 1,000 to be borne by the applicant. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (7) TMI 433 - MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Service - Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... ne law for one set of bodies and another for another set of bodies. Thus, in our considered view, Government Departments rendering a service in terms of the definition of lsquo service rsquo in section 2(r) of the Act, will be governed by the provisions of the Act particularly those relating to restrictive, unfair and monopolistic trade practices. To emphasise, the only qualification, we would like to attach to our conclusion is that the Government Department concerned should be rendering lsquo service rsquo in terms of section 2(r) of the Act. Emphasis supplied 3. In view of the above decision, we are of the considered view that the respondents are squarely covered within the purview of the MRTP Act, 1969. Therefore, the objections of the respondents in this regard are not maintainable. The same are dismissed. 4. Since the pleadings are complete and issues have already been framed, the matter shall be fixed for the evidence of the applicant on 5-11-1996. SCL q DECEMBER, 1996
............
|
