|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 781 Records
-
2007 (8) TMI 706 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r that on a later occasion the quantity of Tafetta cloth was reduced resulting in demand of the revenue, which would be hit by the principle of estoppel as applied in Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.’s case (supra). 12. At the resumed hearing today, on a query put forth by us to the learned counsel for the respondents, it could not be successfully disputed that the judgment in the case of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) would cover the controversy raised in this petition against the respondents. Therefore, we do not propose to undertake any detailed discussion of the issues raised and feel content to observe that the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Accordingly, instant writ petition is allowed in the same terms and respondent No. 2 is directed to issue redemption certificate asked for by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
-
2007 (8) TMI 705 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... y of this kind and it would be unfair, if the appellants are not extended similar consideration in similar circumstance. Accordingly, Order of the lower Appellate Authority rejecting the application for condonation of delay cannot be upheld and the same is set aside. 5. Learned S.D.R. has argued at length relying on the counter-affidavit filed by the Department that the appellants had submitted necessary documents much after filing of the refund claim and hence, there was no delay in sanctioning the refund and therefore, no interest is payable to them. These aspects can be taken into consideration including the affidavit and counter-affidavit filed by both sides, by the lower Appellate Authority when he decides the case on merit. 6. The impugned Order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the lower Appellate Authority for decision on merit. He shall allow adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2007 (8) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Division Bench was justified in affirming the order of the learned Single Judge vacating the interim order of status quo in the matter of stopping the payment in terms of the Letter of Credit?
Whether the principles for grant or refusal to grant injunction in the matter of release of payment in terms of a Letter of Credit or a Bank Guarantee?
-
2007 (8) TMI 703 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Detention orders - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that in an affidavit, the detaining authority has also stated that in order to facilitate the smuggling of goods, the detenu has taken active part by procuring the Import Export Code of one Yogesh Merchant. It is clear, therefore, that the detenu can be said to have abetted the smuggling of goods but it cannot be said that he was concerned with the smuggling of goods.
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned order of detention suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to law. It is illegal and must be set aside. Hence, the impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside.
-
2007 (8) TMI 702 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... aid the impugned final order of seizure appears to be unsustainable and we set aside the said order of seizure. However, the officers of the Siliguri Range may take precautionary steps to ensure that these imported goods are actually sold to hosiery manufacturers. We also like to direct the petitioner that it will inform the concerned charge office in which the petitioner 39 s place of business is situated, before selling this particular consignment and to show that these imported polyester yarn are actually sold to hosiery manufacturers. However, if it is ultimately found that the disputed imported polyester yarn has not been used for hosiery purposes, appropriate legal step for imposing penalty for importing these goods without way-bill may be initiated against the petitioner. The sales tax authorities will release the goods after keeping samples within 24 hours from the date of communication of this order. The application is thus disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2007 (8) TMI 701 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay seeked - opportunity to re-present the appeal - Held that:- It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal papers were returned for production of payment receipts and the same were re-presented on August 6, 2004. If that be the case, the proper course to be adopted by the second respondent is that he should have asked the petitioner/assessee to file an application for condonation of delay, if it exceeds more than 60 days, as per section 36(1) of the Act or in the alternative, he should have fixed the date for hearing the matter by giving specific notice before rejecting the appeal.
The assessee shall re-present the papers along with the payment certificate to satisfy the requirements for entertaining the appeal, with the condone-delay petition, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to take up the condone-delay petition and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 700 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (manufacturers) were not issuing the declarations as contemplated by rule 89A(2) and they were, therefore, not in a position to produce the declaration when demanded by the authorities. This judgment has no application to the present case because admittedly declaration in form No. ST-18A was furnished by the consignee-assessee even at the time of transit and on being pointed out about some cuttings in ST-18A, the corrected ST-18A was furnished by the assessee. This court has held in a number of similar cases that no penalty under section 78(5) of the RST Act is imposable in the aforesaid circumstances and no question of law arises against concurrent finding of two appellate authorities below. Accordingly, there is no force in this revision petition as no question of law arises for consideration under section 86 of the Act. The revision petition is, accordingly, devoid of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of this order may be sent to the respondent-assessee.
-
2007 (8) TMI 699 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all be only at two per cent (at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower). Therefore, the levy of tax at four per cent on poultry-feed supplements covered by C form for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 on the turnover of Rs. 2,54,38,099 and Rs. 3,48,23,850, respectively, is restricted to two per cent. In respect of the escaped turnover for the assessment year 2002-03, under the CST Act, 1956 and the turnover not covered by C forms and F forms for the assessment year 2003-04 under the CST Act, 1956, this court is not expressing any opinion, as the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would seek appropriate remedy. The time spent in prosecuting the writ petitions is excluded. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed only to the limited extent as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Concealment or suppression of tax liability - show cause notice - Held that:- Since the amended section and rule stated do not take away the right of the assessing officer to examine the returns, the contention of the petitioner that the returns have to be accepted automatically cannot be countenanced.
As against the show-cause notice, it is always open to the petitioner to submit, whatever points which are raised in this writ petition, in the form of their objections, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such objections, the assessing officer shall pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration section 12C of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with rule 15(5E) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
-
2007 (8) TMI 697 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment order challenged - non satisfying the requirement of a speaking order - Held that:- There is no dispute between the parties that while deciding the application for stay, respondent No. 3 was exercising quasi-judicial function. Therefore, even though he was not expected to pass judgment like a regular court, it was his bounden duty to record some reasons indicating the application of mind to the factors which are relevant for passing or refusing an order of stay in the matter of levy and collection of taxes. The order under challenge is totally silent on consideration of the relevant factors.
Learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes fairly stated that the order under challenge does not reflect application of mind by the officer concerned to the relevant factors. W.P. allowed and order dated November 3, 2006 is quashed with the direction that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division shall pass fresh order on the petitioner's application for stay within a maximum period of three weeks from today. Demand stayed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 696 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision of taxable turnover at ₹ 19,80,19,000 at 20 per cent, besides levying penalty at 150 per cent - Held that:- A perusal of the revision notice discloses that the petitioner is not provided with reasonable opportunity to put forth his case. It is settled law that if any irregularities, commissions or defects or violations of law are noticed by the respondent, the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of rebutting the allegations made against them with supportive documents. In the instant case, as the impugned notice is bereft of all the details and records said to have been recovered and formed the basis of the show-cause notice, it may not be possible for the petitioner to effectively defend the show-cause notice. Under such circumstances, the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
However, it is open to the assessing officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner containing all the details of records recovered from the business premises, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2007 (8) TMI 695 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... awar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti 1992 87 STC 196 (SC) 1992 UPTC 971. In the said case, he apex court held that the purchases made on behalf of ex-U.P. party and their dispatches outside the State of U.P. at the destination of the exU.P. party as inter-State purchases not liable to tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act in case, if the purchases are made on the instruction or direction of ex-U.P. party as a purchasing commission agent and there is co-relation between the purchases and dispatches. Therefore, for a transaction being an inter-State purchase there should be an order or instruction for making purchases purchases should be in pursuance of such order and after making the purchases there should be dispatch of the goods at the destination of the ex-U.P. principal and there should be a co-relation between the purchases and dispatches. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petitions. In the result, all the ten revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 694 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Is the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, subject to levy of sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976?
Who is liable to pay such a tax?
Whether sub-rule (2) of rule 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 can be treated to be a valid piece of delegated?
Held that:- It becomes abundantly clear that a person, who executes a works contract, shall, by a legal fiction, which section 2(b) creates, be treated as a "dealer" and such a person, for being a "dealer", becomes, under section 3A, liable to pay sales tax for transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract, for, such transfer of property in goods would be deemed to be a "sale" of the goods by the person making the transfer.
Unless the TST Act is suitably amended by either expanding the definition of "dealer" or by making appropriate changes in the provisions of section 3, which is the charging section, no person, who transfers the right to use any goods for any purpose, can be held liable to pay sales tax under the TST Act. What also crystallizes from the above discussion is that rule 3A(2) is, in the light of the discussion held above, ultra vires the TST Act. Appeals, preferred by the writ petitioners, are hereby allowed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 693 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee of cost. The Tribunal held that the dealer in fact purchased such parts for sale and only some of such parts had been used under the warranty claim for which the claim had been made from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited for which credit note was issued. Heard learned Standing Counsel. Section 10(d) of the Central Act reads as follows If any person, - after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose In the present case, on the facts of the case, no case has been made out that there was no reasonable cause. In the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 2004 136 STC 515 2004 UPTC 1198, the apex court held that the parts supplied under the warranty claim amounts to sale. In view of the above, penalty is not sustainable. In the result, all the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 692 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Whether it is permissible for the sales tax authorities, under the TST Act, to direct deduction, at source, of an amount equivalent to four per cent from each bill of the contractor, who has executed a works contract, without taking into account the fact as to whether all the materials used in the execution of a given works contract were or were not exigible to local sales tax?
Held that:- When rule 3A does not "prescribe" deduction at source at the flat rate of four per cent, a direction to deduct sales tax at the flat rate of four per cent from the bills of the contractors is clearly beyond the scope of section 3AA read with rule 3A, for, deduction, at source, is permissible only as prescribed by the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976.
Thus do not find that the learned single judge has committed any error in interfering with the two memoranda aforementioned and in quashing the same, particularly, when we find that the memoranda, in question, had put on the contractors, who were involved in execution of works contract, a legal obligation far more onerous than the TST Act and the Rules framed thereunder envisaged. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, these appeals fail and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 691 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Alternate remedy - whether the order under challenge can be treated as totally non-speaking order is highly debatable? - Held that:- It is, thus, evident that the officer concerned had considered the objection raised by the petitioner and decided the same by assigning reasons.
The three judgments of this court on which reliance has been placed by Shri E. Manohar do not have any bearing on the petitioner's case because in none of them the issue of alternative remedy was discussed and decided.Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to avail remedy by filing appeal. Since the petitioner has sought intervention of the court, we give it liberty to file appeal within a period of 15 days along with an application for condonation of delay and direct that the same shall be entertained, considered and decided on merits.
-
2007 (8) TMI 690 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2004 138 STC 29 2003 3 PLJR 561. The learned Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary, submitted that from the materials on record, it appears to be a case of wilful evasion of tax, and, therefore, imposition of penalty is wholly justified. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the parties and materials available on record, it appears that imposition of penalty would not be justified, as no ingredient of mens rea was found on the part of the petitioner and the delay in payment of tax cannot be said to be deliberate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the legal proposition, as referred to above, the order imposing penalty appears to be wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. In the result, this application is allowed and the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (8) TMI 689 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Whether the metallic yarn produced and sold by the assessee during the period in question, namely, 1986-87 to 1988-89, is taxable at the rate of 1.5 per cent as "all kinds of man-made yarn whether synthetic or non-synthetic, cellulosic or non-cellulosic, blended or not and waste thereof", or is taxable at the rate of three per cent as "badla" under notification dated June 19, 1967?
Held that:- The metallic yarn produced by the assessee squarely falls within the definition of "man-made yarn" and is therefore, taxable at the rate of 1.5 per cent only under the relevant notifications.
Consequently, these revision petitions are allowed and the order of the Tax Board dated July 16, 2001 is set aside and it is held that during the relevant period the assessee was liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 1.5 per cent only on sale of metallic yarn as "man-made yarn" under the applicable rate notifications and not at three per cent as "badla", under the notification dated June 19, 1967. Revision petitions are allowed
-
2007 (8) TMI 688 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interpretation of the provisions of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Held that:- Under section 6A of the Central Act, the burden would be on the dealer to show that movement of the goods had been occasioned not by reason of any transaction involving sale of goods but by reason of transfer of such goods to any other place of business or to the agent or principal, as the case may be, for which the dealer is required to furnish prescribed declaration form in the absence of which the transfer would be treated as sale.
As the petitioners have claimed that they are not liable to furnish declaration form F in respect of the transaction in question and we have come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, liable. We direct the respective assessing authorities to accept the declaration form F of each of the petitioners if they file it within a period of three months from today and to grant exemption in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 687 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 4 of 2003, shall be followed. Paragraph No. 8 of the order reads as follows 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to satisfy the assessing officer by producing the invoice number and the date of export, the name of the ship and port from which it is exported, the date of departure of the ship and copy of the bill of lading in support of actual export and actual shipment of goods. In that event, it is open to the assessing officer to consider the same for the purpose of exemption. The respondent shall also permit the petitioner to file an application, if necessary, to summon the documents from the export house concerned or from the assessing officer who has jurisdiction over the export house by obtaining the copy of the foreign order for the concerned agreement for the better disposal of the assessment proceedings. The writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed.
............
|
