|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 723 Records
-
2009 (5) TMI 900 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent -Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. ORDER The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2009 (5) TMI 899 - SC ORDER
Refund claim - price of the gold which has been allegedly sole unauthorizedly by the Department shall be paid with interest at the rate that may be fixed by this Court - order of refund stayed till further orders.
-
2009 (5) TMI 898 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the facts of this case are completely distinguishable from the present case because that was a case, which was relating to the manufacture of coal briquettes, which were produced by binding clay or molasses with coal. 11. Having heard learned Counsel on both the sides, I am of the opinion that the decision given by the Tribunal in the case of Raj Deep Brothers is correct and justified and are liable to be affirmed by this Court. Therefore, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Raj Deep Brothers, the order of the Tribunal dated 11th October, 2002 is set aside. 12. T.T.R. No. 711 of 2002 is allowed. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee. 13. T.T.R. No. 1550 of 2005, which has been filed by the State is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal passed in favour of the assessee in that case is confirmed. This Court firmly comes to the conclusion that Notification No. 2375 dated 23.11.98 is applicable to the case of the assessee in both the cases.
-
2009 (5) TMI 897 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... we would like to point out that initially none of the detention orders in respect of the petitioners had been placed on record. Subsequently, the petitioners had placed copies of the detention orders on record. The learned Additional Solicitor General had raised an objection as to how the petitioners came upon such detention orders when they had not yet been served with the same. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.05.2009, Mr Tulsi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated that there would be no difficulty in explaining the circumstances under which the petitioners obtained copies of the detention orders and that an affidavit to the same effect would be filed. We find that an affidavit has been filed and it gives some kind of an explanation. We are not commenting upon the explanation given in the said affidavit and leave it to the respondents to enquire into and investigate the said circumstances. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2009 (5) TMI 896 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued. That show-cause notice was also replied to by the appellants by giving various reasons as to why the termination should not have been effected. Later on, the BPCL terminated the dealership. That was challenged by filing writ petitions. However, as per the terms of the agreement of dealership, the appellants also approached the arbitration. Now it is reported that arbitration is over and the award has gone against the appellants which award has also been further challenged. 2. In that view, it will not be possible for us to entertain this appeal. In fact, the writ petitions itself could not have been entertained on the ground that two parallel remedies could not have been pursued by the appellants at one and the same time. The writ petition was rightly dismissed. We do not find any merit in these appeals. They are dismissed without any order as to costs. This order should not be viewed as any expression on the merits of the matters.
-
2009 (5) TMI 895 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... biguous the court is not entitled to go behind the languages so as to add or supply omissions.” In the present case the words are very clear and there is no ambiguity. Moreover in the decisions cited by the learned advocate and also relied on by the lower authority, it has been very clearly held that the exemption notification is not be available to semi-finished ophthalmic blanks. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that this Bench is bound to follow the ratio of the earlier decision and therefore in our view there is absolutely no reason to interfere, with the decisions of the lower authority. In fine, for the reason stated above we dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned order.” The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore following ratio of the above decision, we dismiss all the appeals of the appellants. (Operative portion of order has been pronounced in the open Court on completion of hearing on 11-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 894 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal of the Department is allowed. We further make it clear that the assessee would, during the pendency of this Civil Appeal, pay tax as if Section 43B(f) is on the Statute Book but at the same time it would be entitled to make a claim in its returns.
-
2009 (5) TMI 893 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... offence by sending the goods sold to Calcutta dealer, to a Punjab dealer on the instructions of the buyer for job-work? Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the paper books with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that the facts are absolutely clear and there is no finding recorded by any of the Revenue authorities that the dealer-petitioner was under obligation to pay sales tax. Once, there is no determination of such nature then the question of evasion would also be a subject-matter of dispute. Therefore, we are of the view that the aforesaid two questions of law would arise for determination of this court. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to refer the aforesaid two questions of law for opinion of this court after drawing statement of facts, attaching copies of all the orders. The paper book should be computer printed as per the provisions of law. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2009 (5) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a default sentence can be imposed when compensation is awarded under Sub- Section (3) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Held that:- The provisions of Sections 357(3) and 431 Cr.P.C., when read with Section 64 IPC, empower the Court, while making an order for payment of compensation, to also include a default sentence in case of non-payment of the same. The observations made by this Court in Hari Singh's case (supra) are as important today as they were when they were made and if, as submitted by Dr. Pillay, recourse can only be had to Section 421 Cr.P.C. for enforcing the same, the very object of Sub-Section (3) of Section 357 would be frustrated and the relief contemplated therein would be rendered somewhat illusory.
Thus while awarding compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., the Court is within its jurisdiction to add a default sentence of imprisonment. SLP dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 891 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Applicability of the Notification No. KA.NI.-2-1166/XI-9 (231)/94 U.P. Act 15/48-Order-2000 dated April 10, 2000 - Held that:- When the words used by the Legislature are to extend the benefit of this exemption in such a manner and this is clear from the plain words used in the notification, then to make unnecessarily limitations and restrictions by way of misconceived notion, would not doubt impinge on the very intention of the Legislature and, thereby unnecessarily create restrictions where there are none. As such the view as taken by the Tribunal is narrow and restrictive and seeks to make qualifications on words, which are otherwise plain and commonly used.
The Tribunal has erred in adding an intendment to the words used by the Legislature to confine it to students. This court is, thus, of the opinion that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1166 dated April 10, 2000 in the category of biological instrument and scientific instrument.
-
2009 (5) TMI 890 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether authorities below are right in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has purchased copra from APMC yard, Gubbi and suppressed the same while selling it?
Whether the Tribunal are right in accepting the purchase receipts of copra without verifying the signature of the petitioner and without supplying those materials to the petitioner?
Held that:- Having regard to the facts and conduct of the assessee in not choosing to file objections despite service of proposition notice and not filing no objections and producing any documents, the assessing officer considered and passed the best judgment assessment order and that cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority has exercised discretionary power and quantified the amount of suppressed turnover to ₹ 24,33,750 and the same has been confirmed by the KAT and therefore, the same cannot be termed as erroneous and in our view, none of the question raised would arise for our consideration in this case. Revision dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 889 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unts maintained and to pay the tax at compounding rate of 200 per cent on the higher of these two amounts. There is no dispute that tax paid by the respondent for the year 2001-02 at compounded rate under section 7(1)(a) was lesser than tax payable under sections 5(1) and 5A as per the return filed and accounts maintained. So much so by virtue of this express provision the respondent was liable to pay tax for the year 2002-03 under the compounded rate under section 7(1)(a) at 200 per cent of the tax payable under sections 5(1) and 5A based on the return filed for 2001-02. Accordingly the sales tax revision is allowed reversing the order of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority and by restoring the order of the assessing officer. Since the same principle is applicable for all succeeding years, revision for subsequent year 2004-05 is also allowed reversing the orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority and by restoring the order of the assessing officer.
-
2009 (5) TMI 888 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... abundantly clear that rubber goods not covered by any other entries in any other Schedule to 1994 Act should come within entry 242. The goods manufactured by the applicants can very well come within the purview of the entry 242 of the Schedule IV, if those cannot be related to the items mentioned against entries (i) to (xxiv) of serial No. 198 or entries made against (i) to (xxviii) of serial No. 146. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we set aside the orders as challenged in this petition and remand the matter back to the assessing authority (CTO/BS) for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the goods had actually been sold by the pro forma respondent to the Indian Railways. If upon enquiry it is found that the goods in question had been delivered to the Indian Railways then respective sales to the pro forma respondent should be taxed at eight per cent. The petition, thus, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. PRADIPTA RAY (Chairman). - I agree.
-
2009 (5) TMI 887 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exure 2, that since it has been passed by the Sales Tax Officer and not by the assessing authority of the range, the order of assessment cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is held to be without jurisdiction not being in conformity with rule 34(12)(b). Accordingly, the order impugned, i.e., the assessment order vide annexure 2 is set aside. Let the petitioner appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack II Range, Sriram Nagar, Badambadi, Cuttack, opposite party No. 3 on June 10, 2009. On this appearance, opposite party No. 3 may serve a statutory notice on him and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Sales Tax Officer, Bhanjanagar Circle, Bhanjanagar, Ward A, opposite party No. 2 is directed to transmit the records of the assessee to opposite party No. 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the Revenue for due compliance. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
-
2009 (5) TMI 886 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... cannot ordinarily be questioned in a court of law unless the same is violative of any of the constitutional provisions. The Legislature in its wisdom has not amended entry 54 with effect from April 1, 2005. Legislature is competent to do so. If the sellers of fittings of pipes have really any grievance they may approach the State Government for amending entry 54 by giving effect from April 1, 2005. For the reasons stated hereinabove we do not find any error in the orders passed by the Settlement Commission rejecting the petitioners 39 applications as not entertainable. However, if the petitioners feel they along with other similar dealers may move the State Government for necessary amendment of entry 54 of the VAT Act, 2003. If any kind of joint representation is submitted before the State Government we expect that the same will be duly considered by the appropriate authority. Application is disposed of. No order as to costs. DIPAK CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2009 (5) TMI 885 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Whether, the Commercial Tax Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the second appeal, filed under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, on the ground that the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, has no authority to sign the memorandum of appeal on behalf of Commissioner, Commercial Tax?, and whether an appeal filed only by the "State" is maintainable on behalf of Revenue, against order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)?
Whether, the Commercial Tax Tribunal and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, have erred in law in holding that the assessee, a works contractor, is not liable to pay the tax in respect of amount mentioned in the certificate of tax deduction at source, which was not verified nor the deducted amount paid in the account of the State Government?
Held that:- The Tribunal has committed grave error of law in rejecting the memorandum of appeals filed before it by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax on the ground that neither Commissioner could maintain appeal in respect of order passed by Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, nor the memorandum was signed by the authorised person. The finding and order recorded by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun, in this regard is liable to be set aside. We hold that the three second appeals filed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, before the Tribunal were maintainable against order of the Joint Commissioner, and were duly signed by the person authorized. Question of law No. 1 stands answered in favour of the Revenue/appellant.
Where under a statute contractee has been made an agency to collect the tax in the form of deductions in the payment, if the amount of tax is deducted by such agency, the assessee (dealer) cannot be made liable to pay the same tax again. But if such deduction is found false or the T.D.S. certificate is found not genuine, it cannot be said that the dealer (assessee) is not liable to pay the tax demanded by the A.O. Accordingly, question of law No. 2 stands also answered in favour of the Revenue/appellant.
-
2009 (5) TMI 884 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in not accepting the report of the Valuer which clearly indicates that the investment in the applicant unit was less than ₹ 3,00,000?
Whether, on the perusal of the registration certificate issued under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the applicant has used the challan of some other firm appears to be incorrect?
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant-firm is closed for more than six months at a stretch on the ground that the applicant has filed no returns under misconception of law?
Whether, in any view of the matter the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be set aside?
Held that:- The contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order of the Tribunal has been passed by ignoring material evidence have substance. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the assessee are, therefore, accepted by this court. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The consideration will be made by the Tribunal on the basis of material, which is already there on record before the Tribunal as well as the entire record, which has been placed before this court. The assessee will be given an opportunity once again to establish his case on the basis of the material, which has been produced in this revision also.
-
2009 (5) TMI 883 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay in filing the claim for input tax credit - whether should have been condoned as per the provisions of section 14 of the VAT Act and rule 25(1)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005?
Held that:- The issue involved in these appeals is no longer res integra. Similar controversy was brought before us by the Revenue in City Petro [2009 (1) TMI 789 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], therefore, following the same reasoning, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 882 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether sales to registered dealers are includable in notional tax liability of a "unit" as defined in rule 28A(2)(n) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975?
Held that:- Sales made to registered dealers were not includible in the matter of calculation of "notional tax liability" during the period in question.
Petition succeeds. The order dated December 19, 2001 (P9) and order dated May 26, 2005 (P11) passed by the Tribunal are set aside and direction is issued to the respondents to deduct the sales made to the registered dealers while working out taxable turnover. Accordingly the same would also not be included in "notional tax liability
-
2009 (5) TMI 881 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Claim for sales tax exemption with respect to the "building" rejected - though the exemption sought for with regard to the "plant and machinery" stands accepted
Held that:- To have absolute right, it is very much necessary that the petitioner ought to have obtained requisite release deeds to be executed by other co-owners as well and it should have been produced before the authority for substantiating the claim for exemption; placing reliance on the dictum in exhibit P5 judgment. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of, directing the petitioner to produce proof as to his absolute right over the property by procuring necessary release deeds to be executed by other co-owners or otherwise and produce the same before the first respondent/State Level Committee for considering the claim for exemption within two months. On producing the same, the first respondent shall reconsider .
............
|
