|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 663 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 675 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... incomplete returns. The appellate authority after coming to the conclusion that the penalty levied by the assessing authority is slightly disproportionate, has modified the penalty imposed by the assessing authority by reducing it from Rs. 25,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000. In our opinion, the Tribunal could not have taken exception to the order passed by the first appellate authority by showing undue indulgence to an assessee, who attempted to create an impression of payment of tax promptly but in effect, he had not made the payment. We therefore, hold that the reasoning of the Tribunal is not based on facts and is illegal and consequently, the order of the Tribunal must be held to be erroneous. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 1033 of 1999 dated June 29, 2000, is set aside. The order passed by the first appellate authority in appeal No. 129/95-96 dated February 8, 1996 is restored. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 674 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ondent-dealer along with the reply to the show cause notice, therefore, in these circumstances, no mala fide intention or mens rea on the part of the respondent-dealer for avoidance or evasion of payment of tax can be inferred or gathered. Therefore, the findings of the Rajasthan Tax Board that there was no mens rea or mala fide intention on the part of the respondent to evade tax and thus, penalty imposed without establishing any mens rea on the part of the respondent was not in accordance with law, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse one and further, they do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. Hence, no interference is called for with the same. For the reasons stated above, no substantial question of law arises in this revision petition and there is no force in this revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition, filed by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 673 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cent. It is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by both sides that a contract had been awarded to the petitioner for construction of a bridge. For that purpose the dealer/contractor has purchased iron and steel and has utilised the same for the purpose of construction of the bridge. Iron and steel purchased by him are used not in the same form as iron and steel but are used for the purpose of construction of a bridge. Therefore, liability of the dealer would squarely come under entry No. 6 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, the Tribunal has accepted the reasoning of the revisional authority while confirming the order passed by the revisional authority. In view of the law declared by the apex court in Gannon Dunkerley 39 s case 1993 88 STC 204, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error whatsoever which calls for our interference in this revision petition. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 672 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dated 23-8-2000 whereby it has been clarified that the Govt. dues can be presented in the form of cheque into the authorized bank and if the cheque is not dishonoured later, the payment shall be deemed to have been made on the date when the cheque was handed over to the Govt s bankers. 4. emsp Revenue pointed out that this circular was withdrawn. Subsequently I find that during the period in dispute, the circular was in existence and it was withdrawn w.e.f. 10-6-2001. 5. emsp In view of the above circular, I find no merit in the Appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated in the open Court.)
-
2004 (8) TMI 671 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner became eligible to get exemption for the entire period of seven years and therefore, as on that date, the tax already collected, ought to have been refunded. Under rule 3(2), the benefit becomes admissible after issuance of the certificate of eligibility but there is nothing to show that it is not operative for the entire period for which an assessee is found to be eligible. As on September 13, 2001 the assessee is entitled to exemption for the entire period. He was, therefore, entitled to refund of the tax already paid and since the same has been denied, he is entitled to its refund now. The assessee is also entitled to statutory interest on that amount to be calculated from September 13, 2001 up to date of refund/adjustment. Since the period of exemption has come to an end, the department will be at liberty to adjust outstanding dues against the dealer up to date and refund the balance amount, if any. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in the above terms.
-
2004 (8) TMI 670 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act against the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. In the light of the above decision of the apex court, the attack made on the basis of absence of proof of mens rea should fail. The next contention of the appellant is that thrice the amount of difference between the tax returned and the tax reassessed as penalty under section 17(5A) is expropriatory. But no material whatsoever has been placed on record in support of the above contention. In the absence of factual basis for the above contention, it is not necessary for us to examine the same on merits. That apart we do not find any legal basis for raising such a contention in terms of article 19 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ appeal fails on all the counts. No other points were raised by the appellant for our consideration. In the light of the discussions made above, we affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal.
-
2004 (8) TMI 669 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner as also the Revenue that a categorical finding is returned by the assessing officer while making the assessment as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay any tax on the commodity in question and if so at what rate and how much? 4.. In this view of the matter and in the light of what this Court has observed supra, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to examine the case as aforesaid and accordingly pass consequential assessment orders after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the assessment proceedings. Let this be done within a period of three months from today. Petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the assessing officer within a week enabling him to ensure compliance of this order within the time specified. In the meantime interim order passed by this Court on December 18, 2003 will continue till the date of assessment order. C.C. on usual charges. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 668 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... isions of the TNGST Act, in particular, section 42. If that be so, the petitioner should have insisted upon an order with reasoning for making any such payment while the vehicle was detained or before making any payment under protest, in which event, it would be open for the petitioner to work out its remedy by way of challenging such orders before the appropriate authorities, if the said order does not fit in to the provisions of section 42 of the TNGST Act. Therefore, when there is no cause of action that could be traced in this writ petition for countenancing the claim of the petitioner, there is no scope for granting any relief to the petitioner as prayed for in this writ petition. It is, however, open to the petitioner to work out its remedy as and when the occasion arises, by virtue of any act of the respondent in furtherance of its action under section 42 of the TNGST Act. This writ petition, however, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 667 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the impression that for the period of three years the petitioner had paid the sales tax, whereas, as a matter of fact, he has not paid any tax. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that the assessments have been made for this period and the petitioner was liable to pay the tax. In any case, the tax liability of the petitioner was deferred for a period of 14 years from June 5, 1997. Therefore any liability for these three years would also be payable after the period of 14 years. We feel that the order of State Level Committee is unjust and arbitrary. 4.. Therefore the impugned order is quashed to the extent it would be applicable prospectively, which would otherwise mean that the order of the State Level Committee would be operative from the date on which the petitioner went into the production in the second phase. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 5.. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 666 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... According to the petitioner, as I have already noted, those circumstances may not as much be relevant for the purpose of levy and payment of penal interest for these years and, therefore, I do not propose to deal with the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader in this case. I am of the clear view that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to earlier would squarely apply and the petitioner in the instant case is liable to pay interest in respect of the assessment years 1994-1995 to 1996-1997 only from February 11, 1999 till February 18, 1999 if the said dates are correct. In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot stand except to the extent of the demand of interest for the period from February 11, 1999 to February 18, 1999. I make it clear that all these matters are dealt with only with reference to the period prior to the date of assessments for the three years concerned. The original petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 665 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioners claim for sales tax incentives on the basis of the investments made in the new building and the new plant and machinery, it would be open to the petitioner to submit an application/representation to the State Level Committee for condonation of breaks in production. If the petitioner makes such an application/representation setting out all the relevant details and the documents in support thereof regarding the new building and the new plant and machinery by September 3, 2004, the State Level Committee shall consider and decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably by October 31, 2004. In case the State Level Committee entertains any doubts about any of the claims made by the petitioner, the State Level Committee shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. 12.. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spondent has initiated recovery proceedings before the Magistrate. The revision petitioner has not made clear whether it has paid the entire arrears of tax before commencement of the amended provisions of section 9. Therefore, that the levy of interest even for the assessment year 1998-99 are made applicable. Hence, I do not find that any illegal or incorrect findings are recorded by the trial court in rejecting the objection filed by the revision petitioner. 11.. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, if there is any excess claim of interest made by the respondent-authorities then the revision petitioner is at liberty to claim refund of the same from the concerned assessing authority subject to deposit of the entire arrears of sales tax with interest of Rs. 2,21,446 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 663 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vice by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of article 285 of Constitution of India for challenging the imposition of sales tax on the sale of coal ash by the petitioner No. 1 in the course of their catering activity must fail. 10.. So far as imposition of sales tax on the commodity in question, the same is also covered against the petitioner by a decision rendered in 1988 71 STC 101 (MP) FB 1987 MPLJ 570 (FB) (Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.) and it is also not available for being urged. 11.. Yet one another submission that no case was made out to reassess the petitioner once the assessment was complete, had no merit. Firstly, this objection was not taken before the revisionary authority. Secondly, a case for reassessment was made out because it was noticed that petitioners were wrongly assessed in the entry. 12.. In view of aforesaid discussion. I find no merit in the writ. It fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 662 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d, a natural person, who might be indulging in the business of M/s. Satpal and Co., for his personal gain. But to impute such a machination on the part of a State undertaking is beyond comprehension. 15.. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. Judgment under appeal in each case is set aside. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions are also allowed to the extent that the impugned assessment orders and demand notices holding the appellant liable for the tax, penalty and interest imposed on M/s. Satpal and Co., under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act respectively shall stand quashed and the orders shall not be given effect to against the appellant. We make it clear that we otherwise express no opinion on the merit qua other persons who have been held responsible for carrying on the business of the assessee, M/s. Satpal and Co., and who have been found liable for the demand created under the assessment order. No costs. Appeals allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 661 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cide the application made by the petitioner under section 62(7) of the Act after granting them an opportunity to have their say in support of their application. Needless to observe the State will assign cogent reasons in support of their conclusion keeping in view all the requirements of section 62(7) and other relevant sections and will then decide the application one way or other on merits. It is further made clear that State will decide the application on its merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court on merits because this Court has not applied its mind to the facts of the case and the controversy raised by the petitioner in their application made under section 62(7) ibid. Let the case be decided by the State within six months as an outer-limit from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner to produce the copy of order before concerning authority of State empowered to decide the application within two weeks. C.C. within a week. Matter remanded.
-
2004 (8) TMI 660 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dated December 4, 1984 of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I, West Circle, Cuttack and raise a demand accordingly. 9.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I Range, Cuttack, and the impugned order passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal for the period 1983-84 are quashed and the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack, is directed to make fresh assessment in accordance with law in the manner indicated above. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner will appear with books of accounts before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack on September 1, 2004 when the Sales Tax Officer will either take up the assessment or fix up another date of assessment and thereafter make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. A.K. Parichha, J. - I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 659 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emedy available to it under the provisions of the Act, has approached this Court. Hence, in view of the well-settled law laid down in host of judgments by the honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, the petitioner cannot seek for any relief on this ground also. 20.. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has collected the tax at the rate of four per cent contrary to the permissible limit and enjoyed the said amount from the assessment year 1996-97 till 2000 without remittance of the same to the Government. Hence, such persons are not entitled to take any benefits accrued in view of the subsequent law laid down by the apex Court. 21.. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and having regard to the factual legal aspect of the matter, as stated supra, I do not find any good grounds to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 658 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nded, inasmuch as, no order is passed in pursuance to the notice issued under section 12-B(2) of the Act by the respondent-department. The said notice vide annexure-B cannot be equated to the order. In the absence of any order determining the liability of the petitioner to pay the interest or penalty, the proceedings for recovery of the amount in question cannot be initiated merely on the basis of the notice. Thus, the impugned order dated June 29, 2004, passed by the court below is liable to be set aside and the proceedings in C. Misc. No. 171 of 2004 are liable to be dropped. Hence, the following order is made The impugned order dated June 29, 2004 passed by the court below in C. Misc. No. 171 of 2004 is set aside. The proceedings in C. Misc. No. 171 of 2004 are dropped. The respondent is at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings afresh after passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 657 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... conveying such an order to the affected party. The sales tax is leviable only if there is a sale or purchase and not when transfer of consignment of goods by a principal to the agent. There is no question of levy or evasion of sales tax on admitted facts. 10.. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed. The orders regarding detention of goods and penalty are quashed. 11.. It appears, prima facie, that the detaining authority and the authority passing the order of penalty did not act fairly and did not have minimum knowledge of law expected from such authorities, to safeguard the interest of the Revenue as well as the rights of citizens. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner, Sales Tax, Punjab, to examine this aspect of the matter after giving due opportunity to the concerned officers and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The State will be liable to pay costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000, which it will recover from the erring officers. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 656 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ver, the question of collecting tax on such turnover would not arise as no separate tax was collected. The prices of all the items as disclosed in the sale invoices are inclusive of taxes. When a part of the said sale price is reduced after rebate or discount, the said reduction would have the effect of proportionately reducing the tax also. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the dealers that the portion of the turnover representing the credit notes has already suffered tax or dealers have already paid the tax on that. 9.. In view of the above discussion, the contentions that are advanced on behalf of the dealers are clearly devoid of merit and the authorities below have rightly included the value of the credit notes while arriving at the differential taxable turnover of the dealers. 10.. Under the above circumstances, the special appeals as well as the tax revision cases are devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeals and petitions dismissed.
............
|
