|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 589 Records
-
2004 (4) TMI 547
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "kachri" under a sales tax notification.
2. Determination of whether a product made from maida can be considered "kachri" for tax exemption purposes.
Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "kachri" under a sales tax notification
The Commissioner of Sales Tax raised a question regarding the legality of the Sales Tax Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal and partially allow the assessee's appeal based on the classification of a product termed as "kachri." The Tribunal held that, despite traditionally being made from rice, "kachri" can now be made from maida due to advancements in manufacturing methods. The Tribunal considered the common understanding of "kachri" as a crispy item eaten after frying. The High Court examined a notification exempting certain goods from sales tax, including "kachri," and emphasized that the interpretation of such terms should align with how they are understood by traders and consumers. The court referred to a previous judgment that defined "kachri" as a preparation of rice, thereby establishing a precedent for interpreting the term.
Issue 2: Determination of whether a product made from maida can be considered "kachri" for tax exemption purposes
The dispute centered on whether a product made from maida could qualify as "kachri" for tax exemption under the relevant notification. The assessing authority initially classified the product as an unclassified item, while the first appellate authority categorized it as "namkeen" based on past assessments. The Tribunal, however, considered the product to be "kachri" despite being made from maida, citing the dealer's registration application mentioning the intention to manufacture "kachri." The High Court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the product did not align with the common understanding of "kachri" traditionally prepared from rice. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the product's classification rested on the dealer, and self-serving statements in registration documents were not sufficient evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the product in question did not qualify as "kachri" under the notification and upheld the taxation as "namkeen."
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revisions, setting aside the Tribunal's decision, and ruled that the product made from maida did not meet the criteria to be classified as "kachri" for tax exemption purposes. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting terms in accordance with common understanding and legal precedent, ultimately affirming the taxation of the product as "namkeen."
-
2004 (4) TMI 546
Issues Involved:
1. Liability to entry tax on the import of "day-old chicks" under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994.
2. Exemption from sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and its impact on entry tax liability.
3. Interpretation of the terms "chicks" and "chicken" as distinct or identical commodities for tax purposes.
4. Validity and applicability of exemption notifications under the KGST Act.
5. Authority and procedure for determining tax liability and exemption eligibility.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability to Entry Tax on the Import of "Day-Old Chicks":
The petitioners argued that they should not be liable to pay entry tax on "day-old chicks" imported for rearing in their farms, as their sales of chicken and its meat are exempt from sales tax under Notification S.R.O. No. 1090 of 1999, as amended by S.R.O. No. 7 of 2002. They contended that the check-post authorities were wrongfully detaining the chicks and insisting on entry tax payment.
2. Exemption from Sales Tax under the KGST Act:
The petitioners relied on the notifications exempting poultry farmers from sales tax on the turnover of poultry reared in their own farms. They argued that since there was no sales tax liability due to these exemptions, there should be no entry tax liability either, referencing the decision in Emmvee Solar Systems Pvt. Ltd. v Sales Tax Inspector.
3. Interpretation of "Chicks" and "Chicken":
The petitioners claimed that "chicks" and "chicken" are distinct commodities, as evidenced by various government notifications and the general understanding that chicks are bought for rearing, not as chicken. The Special Government Pleader, however, argued that "chicks" should be included under "live chicken" for tax purposes, citing the Supreme Court decision in Royal Hatcheries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of A.P., which held that chicks are general goods and not livestock.
4. Validity and Applicability of Exemption Notifications:
The court noted that the exemption under the KGST Act was not to the goods but to the dealers who met specific criteria, such as owning the land on which the poultry farm was situated. The court emphasized that the liability to entry tax arises immediately upon the entry of goods into the state, and it would be impractical for check-post authorities to verify compliance with all exemption criteria on the spot.
5. Authority and Procedure for Determining Tax Liability and Exemption Eligibility:
The court held that the issue of tax liability and exemption eligibility involves several factual determinations that should be resolved by the assessing authority under the Act. The court directed the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the assessing authority, which would adjudicate the matter based on evidence and materials presented.
Conclusion:
The court did not make a definitive ruling on the merits of the petitioners' claims regarding exemption from sales tax and entry tax. Instead, it directed the petitioners to seek resolution from the assessing authority. The court suggested that the assessing authority might issue periodic certificates confirming the petitioners' entitlement to sales tax exemptions, which could be used at check-posts to facilitate the release of consignments without immediate entry tax payment, subject to security deposits to ensure compliance if the tax demand is ultimately upheld.
Disposition:
The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioners to pursue their remedies under the Act, and interim measures were suggested to facilitate the release of goods at check-posts.
-
2004 (4) TMI 545
Rejection of application u/s 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for rectification of assessment orders - refund of excess entry tax paid - HELD THAT:- From the statutory provisions, it is clear that in respect of a dealer, who is dealing in motor vehicles, if the dealer imports into notified area the motor vehicles, either for use or for resale, the dealer shall pay the tax on the entry of motor vehicles into local area at the rate as fixed by the Government on the purchase value of the motor vehicle. However, section 4 provides for reduction of tax liability of the dealer to the extent of sales tax and additional sales tax liable to be paid by the dealer on the sale of such motor vehicles. Under this provision, the sales tax and additional sales tax payable by a dealer in respect of a sale of a motor vehicle can be adjusted or set off can be given on the amount of entry tax paid under the provisions of the Entry Tax Act.
On the face of this statutory provision, I am of the view that if the dealer paid entry tax on the taxable event of entry of motor vehicle into the local area and there again liable to pay sales tax on the vehicle being sold, the assessing officer, after determining the tax liability under the Sales Tax Act, shall adjust the said tax liability out of the tax paid by the dealer under the Entry Tax Act. As the tax paid under the 1990 Act is more than the tax determined under the TNGST Act, the petitioner makes such a claim. If the tax payable under the Entry Tax Act is less than the tax payable on the sale of the motor vehicle, can the dealer be claimed that he is not liable to pay sales tax over and above the entry tax by taking recourse to section 4. The answer is only an emphatic "No". Section 11 provides for refund of entry tax collected over and above what the dealer is legally liable to pay. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that it has paid entry tax over and above the tax it is liable to pay. Hence, section 11 is not applicable.
As per the statutory provision, the dealers like the petitioner are entitled to claim set off only in respect of the TNGST tax payable, on the entry tax paid under the Entry Tax Act. If there are any differences between the tax payable under the Sales Tax Act and tax paid under Entry Tax Act, the Government is entitled to retain the same with them, as it is totally different tax. To put it differently, the dealers are not entitled to get back the entire entry tax amount on the ground that they have paid the sales tax. The statutory position is clear as stated above.
It is also equally settled and established principle of law that a decision is an authority for the ratio that has been raised, argued, considered and a decision rendered thereon. Hence, I am of the view that the division Bench judgment relied on by the petitioner has not rendered me from taking a different view on the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are totally different.
The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought. The court held that the petitioner could not claim a refund of the excess entry tax paid, as the statutory provisions did not support such a claim. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. were also dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 544
Issues Involved:
1. Whether condition No. 1 in the tender notice is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
2. Whether condition No. 1 in the tender notice is hit by Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Violation of Article 19(1)(g):
The petitioners argued that the mandatory condition of registration under the Bihar Finance Act for manufacturing units located outside Bihar imposes unreasonable restrictions on their right to trade, thus violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, but this right is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public as per Article 19(6). The court emphasized that "in the interest of general public" can mean the interest of a smaller group and not necessarily the entire nation. It was concluded that the restriction imposed by condition No. 1 does not amount to a total prohibition and is reasonable, aiming to protect local industries and ensure uniform tax compliance. Therefore, the condition does not violate Article 19(1)(g).
2. Violation of Articles 301 and 304:
The petitioners contended that the condition impedes the free flow of inter-State trade and commerce, violating Article 301, and is not saved by Article 304(a), which allows non-discriminatory taxes on imported goods. The court explained that Article 301 ensures the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout India, subject to other provisions in Part XIII of the Constitution. Article 304(a) permits the imposition of non-discriminatory taxes on goods imported from other States. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that sales tax generally does not directly impede trade and commerce and is excluded from the ambit of Article 301 unless it directly restricts the free flow of trade. The court found that the condition ensures a uniform tax rate for goods manufactured inside and outside Bihar, preventing discrimination against local manufacturers. Thus, the condition does not violate Articles 301 and 304(a).
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the condition in the tender notice is not violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 301, or 304(a) of the Constitution. It serves the public interest by protecting local industries and ensuring uniform tax compliance. The writ application was dismissed, affirming that the condition is reasonable and lawful.
-
2004 (4) TMI 543
Issues:
1. Acceptance of account books despite discrepancies during assessment.
2. Taxability of "dalia" at the rate of 4 per cent as foodgrains.
Issue 1: Acceptance of Account Books
The Commissioner of Sales Tax raised the issue of whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in accepting the account books of the dealer despite discrepancies detected during assessment and a survey. The Tribunal's decision to accept the account books was challenged. However, during arguments, the learned Standing Counsel focused only on the second question, indicating that the first question was considered a question of fact and not pressed seriously. As a result, the primary focus shifted to the taxability of "dalia."
Issue 2: Taxability of "Dalia"
The dispute centered around whether "dalia" should be taxed at the rate of 4 per cent as foodgrains or considered an entirely different commodity. The dealer argued that "dalia" was broken wheat and should not be categorized under ata, maida, or suji. The assessing authority treated "dalia" as an unclassified item and levied tax on it at 4 per cent. The Tribunal, in the second appeal, held that "dalia" constituted broken foodgrains and should not be taxed as a separate commodity since it was similar to unsplitted or unprocessed foodgrains. The Tribunal's decision was based on Notification No. 5787, which classified foodgrains at a tax rate of 4 per cent.
Legal Interpretation and Precedents
The judgment referred to various amendments to Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and relevant case laws to determine the taxability of processed foodgrains. The retrospective effect of Explanation II was highlighted, emphasizing that split or processed foodgrains are considered different from unsplit or unprocessed foodgrains for taxation purposes. The court cited precedents such as Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Badrimal Hiralal and Tilok Chand Prasan Kumar v. Sales Tax Officer to interpret the legal provisions. It was established that "dalia" was akin to broken wheat and not a distinct commercial commodity, aligning with common parlance and commercial sense.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that "dalia" should not be taxed as a separate commodity but treated as broken foodgrains similar to unsplitted or unprocessed foodgrains. The judgment emphasized the common understanding of "dalia" as broken wheat and its use in producing flour. Consequently, the revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's justified view on the taxability of "dalia" as foodgrains.
-
2004 (4) TMI 542
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order not served, Limitation period for appeal, Power of appellate authority to condone delay, Jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the assessment order for the year 1998-99, claiming it was not served on him. The Tribunal confirmed that the order was served via registered post on May 17, 2000, placing the appeal beyond the limitation period.
2. The petitioner contended that the limitation period should start from when the certified copy was issued, making the appeal timely. However, the Postal Department's letter indicating delivery to the addressee created a presumption of service, which the petitioner's representative's affidavit did not rebut.
3. The High Court noted that factual conclusions by the appellate authority and Tribunal are binding, and it cannot alter them in a writ jurisdiction. The assessment order was deemed served through registered post, justifying the dismissal of the appeal due to being out of the limitation period.
4. The petitioner argued that even if the appeal was time-barred, the appellate authority could condone the delay beyond 30 days. However, a previous division Bench decision clarified that the authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delays exceeding 30 days, supported by a Supreme Court ruling on the exclusion of the Limitation Act's applicability within a specified period.
5. The petitioner further contended that the original assessment order was flawed and sought its quashing under article 226 of the Constitution. The department opposed, citing the failure to exhaust statutory remedies. The High Court acknowledged its power to intervene without exhausting remedies but noted the petitioner's failure to specifically challenge the assessing authority's order.
6. The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the absence of merit in challenging the assessment order's service, the limitation period for appeal, and the appellate authority's jurisdiction to condone delays. The petitioner's failure to challenge the assessing authority's order directly impacted the decision under article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed without costs, closing the related motion.
-
2004 (4) TMI 541
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "pathological diagnostics reagents" under the BST Act.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to discard evidence presented by the applicant.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of "pathological diagnostics reagents" under the BST Act:
The primary issue was whether the sales of "pathological diagnostics reagents" should be classified under entry C-I-24 of Part I of Schedule C, which pertains to medicines, or under the residuary entry C-II-102 of Part II of Schedule C of the BST Act. The applicant contended that diagnostic reagents are medicinal formulations used in the treatment of human beings and should be taxed at 4%. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST) revised the classification to the residuary entry C-II-102, taxing the reagents at 10%.
The Court noted that prior to July 1, 1981, entry 71 in Schedule C covered both diagnostic reagents and those used for treatment. Post-July 1, 1981, entry C-I-24 was restricted to medicinal formulations used for treatment, mitigation, or prevention of diseases in human beings or animals, excluding those used for diagnosis. The Court held that the exclusion of the words "for diagnosis" from entry C-I-24 indicated a legislative intent to tax diagnostic reagents separately under the residuary entry C-II-102.
The Court rejected the applicant's argument that diagnosis is an integral part of treatment and should be included under entry C-I-24. It emphasized that treatment and diagnosis, though interconnected, are distinct processes. The reintroduction of the words "for diagnosis" in 1996 confirmed that the exclusion from 1981 to 1996 was deliberate and not an oversight. The Court concluded that diagnostic reagents were correctly classified under the residuary entry C-II-102 during the relevant period.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to discard evidence presented by the applicant:
The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in ignoring expert opinions and common parlance evidence from doctors, pathological laboratories, and patients, which supported the classification of diagnostic reagents as medicinal formulations used in treatment. The Court, however, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the evidence presented did not alter the clear legislative intent and statutory language of entry C-I-24.
The Court emphasized that the scope of statutory entries must be understood based on the words used by the Legislature, without adding or substituting terms. The Tribunal's rejection of the applicant's evidence was deemed appropriate, as the legislative amendment clearly excluded diagnostic reagents from entry C-I-24.
Separate Judgments:
There were no separate judgments delivered by the judges in this case. The judgment was delivered by J.P. Devadhar, J., on behalf of the Court.
Conclusion:
The Court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the applicant. It upheld the classification of diagnostic reagents under the residuary entry C-II-102, taxable at 10%, and validated the Tribunal's decision to discard the applicant's evidence. The Court acknowledged the applicant's grievance regarding the refund of excess tax collected but noted that it could not provide relief within the scope of the reference application. The applicant was advised to apply for a waiver of tax and interest, which the respondents were directed to consider in accordance with the law.
-
2004 (4) TMI 540
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of transport rebate or freight charges in the taxable turnover.
2. Validity of the penalty imposed on the assessee.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Transport Rebate or Freight Charges in the Taxable Turnover:
The petitioner, a public limited company, contended that transport rebate or freight charges should not be included in the taxable turnover. The petitioner argued that the sale of products was an ex-factory/ex-depot sale, with all risk and responsibility ceasing on delivery to the carrier. The price was the f.o.r. price, and if purchasers arranged their own transport, the price was reduced by the transportation cost. The petitioner maintained a scale of transport charges based on distance and tonnage, which was deducted from the f.o.r. price to arrive at the ex-factory sale price.
The assessing authority determined the taxable turnover by disallowing the transport rebate, which led to a difference in the taxable turnover. The petitioner's contention was that the rebate was not part of the sale price and was shown separately. However, the assessing authority included the rebate in the taxable turnover and imposed a penalty.
The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, excluding the transport rebate from the taxable turnover. However, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal reversed this decision, holding that the transport rebate should be included in the taxable turnover under sections 2(q) and 2(p) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The petitioner argued that the agreement with stockists and the terms in the invoices and price list supported the exclusion of freight charges from the taxable turnover. The petitioner cited various Supreme Court rulings, including Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that the price received by the company was the invoice amount less the freight, and the form of the invoice was not determinative of the contract.
The Revenue countered by citing the Supreme Court ruling in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which required that to claim the exclusion of freight charges, they must be specified and charged separately and not included in the price of the goods sold. The court noted that the freight charges were included in the sale price in the invoice, and the conditions for exclusion were not met.
The court concluded that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for excluding freight charges from the taxable turnover. The agreed price was inclusive of freight, subject to a fixed transport rebate, making the actual freight charges irrelevant to the customer. Therefore, the transport rebate could not be excluded from the taxable turnover.
2. Validity of the Penalty Imposed on the Assessee:
The assessing authority imposed a penalty on the petitioner for the difference in the taxable turnover due to the disallowed transport rebate. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal initially deleted the penalty, but the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal reinstated it, holding that the transport rebate should be included in the taxable turnover.
The court upheld the penalty, noting that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for excluding the freight charges from the taxable turnover. The penalty was justified as the petitioner's claim for exclusion of the transport rebate was not in accordance with the legal provisions.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the inclusion of transport rebate in the taxable turnover and the imposition of the penalty. The court emphasized that the legal conditions for excluding freight charges were not met by the petitioner, and the agreed price was inclusive of freight charges, making the transport rebate part of the taxable turnover.
-
2004 (4) TMI 539
Transfer of incorporeal goods - Taxability of the consideration received for the transfer of the right to use the trademark - Interpretation of "goods" and "movable property" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Whether the transaction amounts to a sale or a mere right to enjoy the trademark - HELD THAT:- While the word "property" has not been defined in the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891, and in the General Clauses Act, 1897, the terms "movable property" and "immovable property" are defined. "Movable property" is defined as to mean property of every description except immovable property. The term "immovable property" is defined as to include land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth.
The petitioner/ assessee permitted M/s. Muthu Agencies to use their trademark in the course of trade at the rates specified therein for various items during a particular period. Of course, it retained the liberty to make use of the trademark in the event of the licensor starting to manufacture the products. Equally, it retained the liberty to grant licence to any other individual person or company to use the trademarks. Trademark is the property right and it exclusively belongs to the party who has registered it. Such a right is an intangible or incorporeal goods, which can be merchandised by the registered owners.
As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the word "goods" is defined in very wide terms so as to bring in both tangible and intangible objects. General Clauses Act would explain movable property as property of every description except immovable property. Trademark right is intangible goods, which can be subject-matter of transfer. As already pointed out, M/s. Muthu Agencies was granted permission to use the trademark without any restriction whatsoever for a particular period.
Consequently, it can only be taken as transfer of a right to use and not a mere right to enjoy. Simply because the assessee retained the right for himself to use the trademark and reserved the right to grant permission to others to use the trademark, it would not take away the character of the transaction as one of transfer of a right to use.
Conclusion: The court held that the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, confirming the order of the Joint Commissioner-III (SMR), Chepauk, was in order. The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected W.P. M.Ps. were closed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 538
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Applicability of mens rea in the context of penalties under the Act.
3. Quantum of penalty imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948:
The crux of the dispute centers on the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 28-A of the Act, which mandates that goods brought into the State as personal luggage must be accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form (Form XXXI) and that the importer must submit this form for endorsement by the next working day. The applicant argued that the endorsement should be obtained by the next working day from the date the goods reached their final destination (i.e., the place of business). However, the Tribunal and the High Court held that the endorsement should be obtained by the next working day from the date the goods entered the State at Mughalsarai. The High Court emphasized that the language of sub-section (4) is plain and unambiguous, and the requirement is to submit the form for endorsement as soon as the goods are received within the State. The court underscored the principle that taxing statutes must be strictly construed and that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself.
2. Applicability of mens rea in the context of penalties under the Act:
The applicant contended that mens rea (criminal intent) should be considered when imposing penalties under section 28-A(4) of the Act. However, the High Court rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Limited, which established that the classical view of "no mens rea, no crime" has been eroded in the context of economic crimes and departmental penalties. The court noted that penalties for tax delinquencies are civil obligations, remedial and coercive in nature, and do not necessarily require mens rea.
3. Quantum of penalty imposed:
The initial penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Officer was Rs. 4,80,000, which was subsequently reduced by the first appellate authority to Rs. 72,600 and further reduced by the Tribunal to Rs. 48,400. The applicant argued that no penalty should be leviable based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, decided to reduce the penalty to the amount equivalent to the tax, which amounted to Rs. 24,200. The court reasoned that this reduction would serve the interest of justice.
Conclusion:
The High Court partially allowed the revision, reducing the penalty to Rs. 24,200 while upholding the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 28-A of the Act and rejecting the argument for the inclusion of mens rea in the context of penalties under the Act. The judgment underscores the strict interpretation of taxing statutes and the principle that penalties for tax delinquencies are civil obligations not necessarily requiring mens rea.
-
2004 (4) TMI 537
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of 'manufacture' under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Whether cutting glass sheets into strips and other items constitutes 'manufacture' for tax purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to a Commissioner's revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, focusing on the interpretation of the term 'manufacture.' The primary question of law raised was whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in ruling that glass strips and other items cut from a glass sheet do not qualify as 'manufacture,' despite the provision in section 2(e-1) of the Act indicating otherwise. The dispute arose from the assessment year 1984-85 when the dealer contested tax liability on the sale of looking glass. The assessing authority considered the dealer a manufacturer of looking glass, leading to tax imposition on self-manufactured looking glass and other items. However, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that cutting looking glass from a glass sheet did not amount to manufacturing.
The learned standing counsel cited the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(e-1) of the Act, which includes various processes like producing, altering, or processing goods. Referring to a previous judgment, the counsel argued that the dealer's activity fell within this definition. However, the Court distinguished a relevant case where the conversion of mirror sheets into toilet looking glass was considered manufacturing. In the present case, the dealer purchased glass sheets and, after processing, sold them in different sizes without creating a new commercial commodity. The Tribunal found that cutting glass into various sizes did not constitute manufacturing. The Court also highlighted a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that not every variation or finishing of goods amounts to manufacture unless it results in a new commercial commodity's emergence, referencing a case related to crushing boulders into different sizes known as gitti.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the revision, stating that the dealer's activity of cutting glass sheets into strips and various sizes did not meet the threshold of 'manufacture' as per the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The judgment underscores the importance of creating a new commercial commodity through manufacturing processes to qualify for tax implications, as established in relevant legal precedents.
-
2004 (4) TMI 536
Issues:
Controversy over determining tax component on sale of rice based on conflicting decisions of two-member and three-member benches of the Sales Tax Tribunal.
Analysis:
The judgment deals with a dispute regarding the calculation of the tax component on the sale of rice, arising from conflicting decisions of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioners argued that the formula provided under section 8A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was upheld by the Court in a previous case. The three-member Bench of the Sales Tax Tribunal had followed the Court's decision in a similar case, establishing a settled principle. However, a later decision by a two-member Bench created confusion, leading to the issuance of circular instructions by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department.
The Court emphasized that when there are conflicting decisions on a legal principle, the law laid down by a larger Bench prevails unless overturned by a subsequent larger Bench. In this case, the three-member Bench's decision had settled the controversy regarding the tax component on the sale of rice. The Court noted that the two-member Bench did not have the benefit of considering the three-member Bench's decision, leading to confusion in its ruling. Therefore, the Court declared that the two-member Bench's decision was not a good law.
Based on the settled legal principle, the Court held that the view taken by the two-member Bench was invalid, and the circular instructions issued based on that decision were also invalid. Consequently, the assessments or reassessments made following the circular instructions were set aside. The Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to take consequential steps without awarding any costs. The ruling clarified the legal position and resolved the confusion caused by conflicting decisions within the Sales Tax Tribunal, providing a clear direction for future assessments in similar cases.
-
2004 (4) TMI 535
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is a "dealer" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?
2. Whether the sales of discarded parts or old used buses by the petitioner attract sales tax?
Issue 1: The main issue in this case was whether the petitioner, a transport corporation, qualifies as a "dealer" under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner argued that as a corporation established to provide transport services to the public, it did not engage in buying or selling activities, thus should not be considered a "dealer." The definition of "dealer" under section 2(g) of the Act was crucial in determining this issue. The petitioner also relied on the absence of Explanation (3) in the statute at the relevant time to support their position.
Issue 2: Another crucial issue was whether the sales of discarded parts or old used buses by the petitioner were subject to sales tax. The petitioner contended that such sales should not attract tax as they constituted "second sales." The argument revolved around whether the main activity of the corporation was providing transport services, with the sale of old buses or parts being incidental, thus not falling under the purview of taxable transactions.
Analysis: The court examined relevant legal provisions and precedents to determine the petitioner's status as a "dealer" and the taxability of the sales in question. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision regarding the Madras Port Trust to analyze the concept of "carrying on business" and the incidental nature of certain sales activities. Previous decisions by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court in cases involving transport corporations were also considered to establish a framework for decision-making.
The court differentiated between incidental sales related to the main activities of a corporation and independent sales activities constituting a business. It was emphasized that the mere addition of Explanation (3) post the relevant period did not alter the applicability of the Act to the petitioner's transactions. The court held that the sales of old buses or parts by the transport corporation attracted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act based on the interpretation of relevant legal principles and precedents.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioner met the criteria of a "dealer" and that the sales in question were subject to sales tax. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the nature of the transactions as "second sales" and upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal definitions, precedents, and the interpretation of statutes in determining tax liabilities in such cases.
-
2004 (4) TMI 534
Whether appellants are entitled to take credit on the value of the total quantity of molasses received in its factory for the purpose of manufacture ethyl alcohol without taking into consideration the certain percentage of loss which happens to be storage loss?
-
2004 (4) TMI 533
Whether Section 42 of the NDPS Act applies to the facts of this case?
Held that:- In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party.
We, therefore, hold that in the facts of this case Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable since the contraband was recovered on search of a vehicle and there was no personal search involved. The requirement of the proviso to Section 42 was also not required to be complied with since the recovery was made at a public place and was, therefore, governed by Section 43 of the Act which did not lay down any such requirement. Additionally, since the Superintendent of Police was a member of the search party and was exercising his authority under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, the proviso to Section 42 were not attracted. Appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the respondents are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The respondents shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence subject to the provisions of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
-
2004 (4) TMI 532
Whether the evidence is reliable or not and to what extent, such lapse affected the object of finding out the truth?
Held that:- There is no scope for reappraisal of evidence and interference with the concurrent findings of fact. This Court is not ordinarily to go into the credibility of the findings and interference is permissible only when exceptional and special circumstances exist which resulted in injustice to the accused. This is not a case of that nature and the evidence seems to be not only creditworthy but the conclusions arrived at also are well merited and sufficiently supported by overwhelming material on record. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 531
Extent of jurisdiction of election tribunal to direct recounting of votes - Held that:- It is expected that the statutory remedies provided for shall be availed of. If such an opportunity is availed of by the Election Petitioner; he has to state the reasons therefor. If no sufficient explanation is furnished by the Election Petitioner as to why such statutory remedy was not availed of, the Election Tribunal may consider the same as one of the factors for accepting or rejecting the prayer for recounting. An order of the prescribed authority passed in such application would render great assistance to the Election Tribunal in arriving at a decision as to whether a prima facie case for issuance of direction for recounting has been made out. Thus we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference. The appeal as also the contempt petition are accordingly dismissed
-
2004 (4) TMI 530
Whether the High Court’s conclusion that the Civil Court at Barnala had jurisdiction to try the suit filed by respondent No.1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ’Plaintiff No.1’) and Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ’plaintiff No.2’) is correct or not?
Held that:- The inevitable conclusion is that the High Curt was not justified in upsetting the order of First Appellate Court. It is not a case where the chosen Court did not have jurisdiction.
The intention of the parties can be culled out from use of the expressions "only", "alone", "exclusive" and the like with reference to a particular Court. But the intention to exclude a Court’s jurisdiction should be reflected in clear, unambiguous, explicit and specific terms. In such case only the accepted notions of contract would bind the parties. The first Appellate Court was justified in holding that it is only the Court at Udaipur which had jurisdiction to try the suit. The High Court did not keep the relevant aspects in view while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the first Appellate Court. The Court at Barnala shall return the plaint to the plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.1) with appropriate endorsement under its seal which shall present it within a period of four weeks from the date of such endorsement of return before the proper Court at Udaipur. If it is so done, the question of limitation shall not be raised and the suit shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed.
-
2004 (4) TMI 529
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be inferred that the jurisdiction of all other Courts except Courts in Mumbai is excluded?
Held that:- Having regard to the fact that the order was placed by the defendant at Bombay, the said order was accepted by the branch office of the plaintiff at Bombay, the advance payment was made by the defendant at Bombay, and as per the plaintiffs’ case the final payment was to be made at Bombay, there was a clear intention to confine the jurisdiction of the Courts in Bombay to the exclusion of all other Courts. The Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi had, therefore, no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 28.3.1997 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi as affirmed by the order dated 21.12.2001 by the Delhi High Court is set aside. The plaint filed by the respondent herein is ordered to be returned for presentation before the competent Court at Bombay.
-
2004 (4) TMI 528
Application of Clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India questioned - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. If the Central Act and the State Act had been enacted in terms of different entries of List I and List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. In this case, admittedly both the Central Act and the State Act had been enacted in terms of Entry 22 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. In case of any conflict therefor the constitutional scheme contained in Article 254 will have to be applied. Even if Section 25S of the State Act is read to have an overriding effect, undoubtedly the provisions of the supreme lax shall prevail over a statute. A non-obstante clause contained in a statute cannot override the provisions of the Constitution of India.
............
|
9911796707
