|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 444 Records
-
1996 (2) TMI 480 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ling within the purview of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act cannot be subjected to tax by any State. It has further been held therein that the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning export of goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, provided,- (i) such last sale or purchase took place after , and (ii) was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. 13.. In the present case, as noticed above, petitioner has sought exemption from levy of tax on the purchases made by it from unregistered dealers which is a transaction preceding penultimate sale occasioning the export of goods in question. Accordingly, it has to be held that the purchase made by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be one in the course of export within the meaning of section 5(3) of the Act. 14.. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 479 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... question that arose for consideration before the apex Court in that case was whether an assessee can file revision under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. By interpreting the said provision, the court hold that assessee cannot invoke the suo motu power of the authorities under section 20. In that case, the question as to whether revisional jurisdiction can be invoked to assail the order of the first appellate authority without challenging the said order in the second appeal did not come up for consideration. Accordingly, the said decision is of little assistance to the learned Standing Counsel. 11.. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the impugned notices, annexure 1 in both the petitions issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax are without jurisdiction and are accordingly quashed. 12.. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. D.P. MOHAPATRA, AG. C.J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 478 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... per section 36-A(1), it casts a duty on every bank, clearing and forwarding agent as well as transporters to give proper information to the Commissioner and in the event of not furnishing proper information to the Commissioner, it has been made penal under sub-section (2). Therefore, it is apparent that the Commissioner has been given this power as a regulatory measure to enforce the provisions of the Act for evasion of taxes. It cannot be said that the assessing authority had no power to impose a penalty in case of failure to furnish information. 4.. In the present case on account of breach on the part of the assessee, the penalty has been imposed and we are of the opinion that such penalty is within the competence of the assessing authority under sub-section (2) of section 36-A of the Act. 5.. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. We accordingly answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
-
1996 (2) TMI 477 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ified in holding that price of food charged from the customers was incidental to service rendered and not liable to tax, even when the assessee had paid the tax admitted by himself in the Government treasury which is a sufficient proof that the price of food charged from the customers was inclusive of sales tax? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ordering refund of tax, if so recovered from the customers? 4.. It is true and Shri V.S. Dabir, learned counsel for the assessee, has rightly pointed out that the second question has not been raised by the Revenue in the application. But we are of the opinion that this second question does arise in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court given in the case of Municipal Council, Jodhpur v. Parekh Automobiles Ltd. (1990) 1 SCC 367. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to send reference on the aforesaid two questions of law to this Court for answer. The application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Application allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 476 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... re permissible under section 3-B(2), there may be also the question of profit margin, hire charges and other incidental expenses. These have to be carefully considered by the assessing officer. Though the prayer in this petition is to set aside the conditional order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while granting stay, yet in order to give a quietus to the controversy and to prevent prolongation of the dispute for an indefinite period till appeals, revisions, etc., would reach a conclusion, it is necessary and proper to examine the correctness of the order of assessment itself in the light of the submission made by the counsel. Since, the order of assessment dated November 13, 1995, is found to be erroneous and unsustainable, for the reasons indicated above, the same is set aside. The assessing officer shall pass de novo orders in accordance with law. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this the 6th day of February, 1996. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 475 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ey stand apart from the language, when viewed with the meanings given by the dictionary. Even according to article 343 of the Constitution of India, the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script and the form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals, but not in Hindi or Devanagari script. It is also to be noted that the petitioner would not be handicapped when the prescribed numerals, i.e., international Indian numericals are insisted to be used in the maintenance of accounts by him. Moreover, the APGST Act enables the authorities to frame rules regarding the manner in which accounts are to be maintained. Therefore, in our view, rule 45(1-B) of the Rules is not in violation of articles 14, 19(1)(a), (d), (e) and (g) of the Constitution of India. We see no merits in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 474 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntracts. 14.. In the result, we answer question No. (i) in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicants/assessee and against the non-applicant/department. 15.. In view of the aforesaid answer, we do not answer question No. (ii) as prayed by the counsel for the applicants at whose instance these references are forwarded to this Court. The applicants can legally elect not to press a particular question referred at their instance. In these circumstances, we do not answer question No. (ii) and leave it open. 16.. These reference applications are thus answered in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. 17.. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 18.. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal in accordance with the law. 19.. Retain this order in the records of Misc. Civil Case No. 180 of 1989 and place its copy in the records of Misc. Civil Case No. 181 of 1989 for ready reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 473 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission. In these circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that the letter written by the appellant does not put him out of court. 12.. In Kanpur Vanaspati Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1973 32 STC 655 (SC) (1973) 4 SCC 110, interpretation of the words tax admitted was involved, and the appellant s contention was found to be an afterthought. In Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Raja Glass House 1989 75 STC 417 (Raj), the assessee did not put his appearance and his admission was simply relied upon. Thus the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 13.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 19,224 (rupees nineteen thousand two hundred and twenty-four) received from the petitioner as composition fee with interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of deposit to the date of refund, within three months from today. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 472 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of revision mentioned in section 21 is altogether separate from and unconnected with the power of reassessment by an Assessing Authority under section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act. In my opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner had authority to revise the previous orders made by the Assessing Authority in the present cases. The reasoning adopted by the Division Benches in Narain Singh Mohinder Singh case 1963 14 STC 610 (P and H) and the National Rayon Corporation Limited s case 1964 15 STC 746 (P and H), stands approved by a Full Bench of this Court in Hari Chand Rattan Chand s case 1969 24 STC 258. In view of the decisions of this Court in Asian Rubber and Plastic Industries case 1982 50 STC 383 and Luthra Rubber Industries case 1985 59 STC 198, question No. (ii) is answered against the assessee and in favour of the department. No costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 471 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y, i.e., the disability is reduced by reason of the attachments fitted to those limbs and such a procedure is known as orthetics. If it is so, we find it very difficult to accept the stand of the department that, that cannot be characterised as artificial limbs. In such a case, the limb was useless but for the fitment made to it. That fitment renders the limb useful or enhance the use of the limb which was otherwise capable of minimal use. Therefore, it must be understood that such artificial fitment itself is a kind of limb coming within the scope of the notification exempting the payment of tax under the Act. The approach of the department is unimaginative and unrealistic and therefore, we cannot accept the same. 5.. In the circumstances, the orders made by the authorities in so far as these items are concerned shall stand set aside. In other respects, the orders made by the authorities concerned shall remain undisturbed. 6.. Petition allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 470 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ication dated December 13, 1994, at page 17 of the papers it is seen that the petitioner, under the guise of asking for reasonable opportunity, cleverly wanted to see that the proceedings get barred by the law of limitation. The learned counsel factually did not dispute this position. 3.. There is no dispute that the time-limit for revision under section 35(2)(c) would have expired on December 28, 1994 and it is in this light of the situation the request for adjournment and grievance with regard to the lack of reasonable opportunity would have to be taken into consideration. It is obvious that by asking for time of one month, the revisional authority would have definitely become incapacitated by the operation of the provisions of limitation specified hereinbefore. Even otherwise it is found that the petitioner had knowledge of the escape of the assessment and the circumstances in regard thereto. Considering all these aspects the revision stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 469 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble to show that such a combination of electrical motor and grinder created a new commodity altogether, such commodity should not be taxed when sold by a person creating the commodity and seeking exemption. As in the instant case, the case of the assessee that he was purchasing the electric motor and grinder separately and selling them separately, has been rejected and what has been found is that after purchasing the electric motor and grinder separately, the assessee assembled them into one unit and sold it as an electrical wet grinder, thereby falling under entry No. 41-E of the First Schedule to the Act which reads thus Wet grain grinders designed for use with electricity or other form of power (whether or not sold as a composite unit, with or without motors) and the parts and accessories of such grinders. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the Joint Commissioner does not call for interference. The appeal is, accordingly, rejected. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 468 - SC ORDER
Amendment of rule - Held that:- Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule.
-
1996 (2) TMI 467 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... efore 24-1-82 or applied for extension of time to the Collector. Therefore, in view of the clear cut directions in the notification, the lower authorities were well within their right to demand the differential duty which they did and rightly so and we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. 6. emsp On the question of interpretation of exemption notification, we observe that an exemption is an exception rather than a rule. An exception is to be read strictly and construed very strictly and so far as extending the benefit of the notification is concerned, recently the Apex Court in the case of Novopan 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) held that an exemption notification should be construed strictly and in case of doubt, the benefit should be given to the Department. They further supported this view in the case of Liberty Oil Mills 1995 (75) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) . Having regard to the above findings, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1996 (2) TMI 466 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the learned SDR that RG-1 register provides a column for semi-finished goods and since these goods were not entered in that column, there was a breach for incorrect maintenance of accounts. I therefore, hold that penalty in this breach was imposable. On the question of quantum of penalty, I find that the Collector, perhaps was being fair and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in his first order. I find that this amount is reasonable. Accordingly, I reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). On the question of redemption fine, I find that the Collector initially had allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. This quantum of redemption fine appears to be reasonable and is held so. Therefore, the quantum of redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only). 7. emsp But for the above modifications, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (2) TMI 465 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... eferring to the case-law on the point held that the Electrical Grade Industrial Insulation Board are classifiable under Heading 8546.00 under the new Tariff as reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 660. In this premises, he submitted that the goods in question are classified under Heading 8546.00. In reply, the learned SDR Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, faced with the said judgment of the Tribunal submitted that what was argued on behalf of the Revenue in the said case of C.C.E. v. Metrowood Engineering Works be treated as his arguments in the present case also. 3. emsp Considered. Following the ratio of the said decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Metrowood Engineering Works, we hold that the Electrical Grade Industrial Insulation Board are classifiable under Heading 8546.00 under the new Tariff. 4. emsp In the result, both the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants according to law.
-
1996 (2) TMI 464 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Notional higher credit ... ... ... ... ..... it can be held that the claim for higher notional Movat credit was staked the moment the GP-1 was submitted to the Department while filing the RT-12 returns and thus, limitation, if any, shall not be applicable in this case. I also observe that this Tribunal has consistently been holding that in the absence of any specific limitation in the Modvat Rules, Modvat credit of duty can be taken without limitation. 6. emsp The contention of the learned DR is that lsquo reasonable time rsquo necessarily means six months. I find that since the claim was already staked by submission of relevant GP-1 along with RT-12 returns, the limitation of six months will not be applicable in this case. 7. emsp In view of the above discussions and the case laws cited supra, I hold that the limitation is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case as also in view of the consistent view of the Tribunal in this regard. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 463 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation, fine and penalty - Valuation - Import of dry fruits - Excess quantities imported
-
1996 (2) TMI 462 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ldquo Thus it can be concluded that judicial review cannot be treated as an appeal from the decision of a Tribunal. Its scope is limited and is directed to the manner in which the decision was made. The High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of the decision but is concerned only with the correctness of the decision making process. It can only interfere if the decision of an authority or a Tribunal is not grounded on any evidence or is based on surmises or proceeds on irrelevant factors and is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable person would on given facts and circumstances come to the conclusion reached by it. rdquo 18. emsp In the instant case the decision of the authorities do not suffer from any of the maladies pointed out in the aforesaid decision. 19. emsp For the foregoing reasons the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed and the rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 460 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Surgical catguts - Demand - Limitation - Rebate of duty - Export - Proof ... ... ... ... ..... icalities should not have been allowed to come in the way to deny substantive benefits to which the appellants were otherwise eligible. We do not, have on record, copies of shipping bills except list indicating the number of shipping bills and invoices. We, therefore, hold that if shipping bills indicating the name of exporter as the appellants and giving correct description of the goods are produced to that extent the quantity should be deemed to have been exported and reduced from the total figure of the goods cleared without payment of duty. We, therefore, remand this matter to Collector on the limited ground for determining, on the basis of evidence that may be produced by the appellants, the quantity shown to have been exported. The Collector shall, therefore, decide this point de novo after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and thereafter pass suitable orders with regard to penalty. Subject to this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
............
|
