|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 38 of 38 Records
-
1965 (1) TMI 65
Issues:
1. Liability of a partnership firm for tax dues of another partnership firm.
2. Joint and several liability of partners for tax dues.
3. Nature of interest of individual partners in partnership property.
Analysis:
The case involves a writ petition by a partnership firm in Madras, engaged in the manufacture of glass, seeking relief from the Sales Tax Authorities of Andhra Pradesh who attempted to recover tax dues from the Madras firm for transactions of a Nagpur firm, in which one of the partners of the Madras firm was also involved. The issue at hand was whether the Madras firm could be held liable for the tax dues of the Nagpur firm based on the common partner between the two entities.
The Sales Tax Authorities argued that since there was a common partner, D.V. Shah, between the Nagpur firm and the Madras firm, the latter should be held liable for the tax dues of the former. However, the court found that mere common partnership did not establish a common identity or legal liability between the two firms. The court emphasized that each partnership is a separate legal entity, and the common partner alone cannot create a joint liability between the two firms.
Furthermore, the Sales Tax Authorities contended that the partners of the Nagpur firm, including D.V. Shah, were jointly and severally liable for the tax amount, justifying the attachment of D.V. Shah's share in the Madras firm. The court, citing legal principles, clarified that in a partnership, all partners have joint ownership of the entire partnership property, and no partner can claim exclusive ownership of any specific partnership asset. Therefore, the government cannot seize specific partnership property to recover dues from an individual partner.
The court referenced legal authorities and precedents to support its decision, highlighting that the government's remedy in such cases is to pursue recovery from the assets of the defaulting firm or the individual partners, rather than targeting specific assets of a partnership. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the Madras firm and rejecting the attempt to hold it liable for the tax dues of the Nagpur firm. The court also refrained from awarding costs, noting the absence of evidence suggesting unfair evasion of tax payment by D.V. Shah.
-
1965 (1) TMI 64
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the amendments made to the appellant's registration certificate.
2. Legality of the appellant's tax-free purchases of bullion and specie.
3. Authority of the Commissioner to compound offences and validate declaration forms.
4. Jurisdiction of the successor Commissioner to review and revise the predecessor's order.
5. Compliance with the statutory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Amendments Made to the Appellant's Registration Certificate:
The appellant, a partnership firm dealing in bullion and ornaments, was initially registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, with a certificate allowing tax-free purchases of bullion for manufacturing purposes only. However, post the 1955 amendment, the appellant's registration certificate required modification to include taxable transactions in bullion and specie. The appellant mistakenly believed that the amendments to its registration certificate covered such transactions, leading to tax-free purchases of bullion for resale.
2. Legality of the Appellant's Tax-Free Purchases of Bullion and Specie:
Post-amendment, the appellant continued making tax-free purchases of bullion for resale, assuming its registration certificate covered these transactions. This led to a notice from the Commercial Tax Officer in 1958, citing unauthorized purchases and false representation under sections 22(1)(c) and 14(1) of the Act. The appellant compounded the offence by paying Rs. 500 initially and later an additional Rs. 2,000, as directed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Despite this, the Commercial Tax Officer disallowed these purchases, making the appellant liable for sales tax.
3. Authority of the Commissioner to Compound Offences and Validate Declaration Forms:
The appellant argued that the offence was compounded twice under section 23, which empowered the Commissioner to compound offences under section 22(1). The Commissioner's order on January 20, 1959, included a direction to treat the declaration forms issued by the appellant as valid. This was challenged by the successor Commissioner, who deemed the order void ab initio, arguing that the validation of declaration forms was beyond the Commissioner's authority under section 23.
4. Jurisdiction of the Successor Commissioner to Review and Revise the Predecessor's Order:
The appellant contended that the successor Commissioner, Mr. S.K. Ghosh, lacked jurisdiction to review the order dated January 20, 1959, under section 20(4) of the Act, which allows review only by the person who passed the order. However, rule 82 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules permits a Commissioner to review an order made by a predecessor, thus validating Mr. Ghosh's jurisdiction to review the order.
5. Compliance with the Statutory Requirement of Providing a Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard:
The appellant argued that the order dated March 15, 1960, was made without giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating section 20(5) of the Act. This provision mandates that any order adversely affecting a person must be preceded by a reasonable opportunity for the affected party to be heard. The court found no evidence that such an opportunity was provided, making the order procedurally flawed.
Conclusion:
The court held that while the Commissioner had jurisdiction to make the order dated January 20, 1959, and the successor Commissioner had the authority to review it, the review order dated March 15, 1960, violated section 20(5) due to the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order dated March 15, 1960, was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued to prevent further effect to the said order. The respondents were directed to act according to law, with each party bearing its own costs.
-
1965 (1) TMI 63
Issues Involved:
1. Whether non-payment of tax due for the year ending 31st December 1957, after the demand notice, constitutes a contravention of sub-rule (7) of rule 14-A of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957.
2. Whether the prosecution of the accused is competent in law.
3. Interpretation of rule 14-A and its retrospective application.
4. Whether the breach of rule 14-A(7) is punishable under rule 16.
5. Jurisdiction of the criminal court in construing statutory provisions related to tax assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Non-payment of Tax and Contravention of Rule 14-A(7):
The primary issue is whether the non-payment of tax due for the year ending 31st December 1957, after a demand notice, constitutes a contravention of sub-rule (7) of rule 14-A of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957. Rule 14-A was introduced in 1958, and the act complained of (non-payment of tax) occurred after this rule came into force. The court analyzed whether the non-payment for a period before the introduction of rule 14-A could be punishable under rule 16 read with rule 14-A(7). The court concluded that the breach in relation to rule 14-A(7) made punishable by rule 16 must be for the period covered by sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 14-A, which are prospective and do not cover the period ending 31st December 1957.
2. Competency of Prosecution:
The court examined whether the prosecution was competent in law. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that non-payment of tax was not punishable under rule 16 as rule 14-A was not in force during the period for which the tax was due. The court upheld this view, stating that since the tax due relates to a period not falling within the ambit of sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 14-A, non-payment thereof in due compliance with the demand notice is not punishable under rule 16 read with rule 14-A(7).
3. Interpretation of Rule 14-A and Retrospective Application:
The court emphasized that no statute or its provision shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such construction appears clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Rule 14-A, introduced in 1958, is prospective and does not apply to the period ending 31st December 1957. The court stated that the returns to be submitted under rule 14-A cannot relate to any period before its introduction.
4. Breach of Rule 14-A(7) and Punishment under Rule 16:
The court analyzed whether the breach of rule 14-A(7) is punishable under rule 16. Sub-rule (7) is not self-contained and must be read with sub-rules (5) and (6), which in turn refer to sub-rules (1) and (2). The court concluded that non-payment of tax due for a period not covered by sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 14-A is not punishable under rule 16. The breach must be in relation to a tax due from the month rule 14-A came into force or subsequent thereto.
5. Jurisdiction of Criminal Court in Construing Statutory Provisions:
The court addressed the argument that a criminal court should not pronounce on the validity of the final assessment. It clarified that while a criminal court cannot sit in judgment on the assessment made by a competent authority, it is within its jurisdiction to construe statutory provisions to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The criminal court must ascertain whether the contravention constitutes an offence punishable under rule 16, and it is bound to interpret the relevant provisions in this context.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the trial court's order of acquittal, concluding that the non-payment of tax for the period ending 31st December 1957 is not punishable under rule 16 read with rule 14-A(7) as the rule does not apply retrospectively. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 62
Issues:
Validity of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Second Amendment) Act, 1955 and discrimination between registered and unregistered dealers.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a bullion merchant, challenged the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Second Amendment) Act, 1955, claiming it was invalid legislation. The petitioner contended that the Act was unconstitutional due to discrimination between registered and unregistered dealers. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of certiorari and mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner's main argument focused on the procedural irregularity regarding the recommendation of the Governor for the Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Bill, in its amended form, lacked the necessary recommendation from the Governor for imposing tax on bullion and specie. The counsel contended that the Act was invalid due to this procedural flaw.
In response, the respondents relied on Article 212 of the Constitution, which protects the validity of legislative proceedings from being challenged based on procedural irregularities. The petitioner's counsel, however, argued that this immunity did not apply when the Legislature acted beyond its legislative competence or violated a mandatory provision of the Constitution.
The Court, in its analysis, referred to Article 255 of the Constitution, which states that an Act shall not be invalid solely due to a lack of required recommendation if assent is given by the appropriate authority. In this case, the assent of the Governor to the Act was published, curing the procedural defect raised by the petitioner. The Court also cited a similar view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in a previous case, supporting the validity of the Act.
Ultimately, the Court found that the petitioner's argument lacked merit, as the procedural defect was cured by the Governor's assent. The Court discharged the Rule with costs, emphasizing that the only argument presented in support of the petitioner's challenge failed.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the validity of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Second Amendment) Act, 1955, and rejected the petitioner's claim of discrimination between registered and unregistered dealers, dismissing the petition with costs.
-
1965 (1) TMI 61
Issues:
1. Classification of "Batasa", "Chiranji", "Mishri" for sales tax purposes
2. Rejection of account books and assessment based on best judgment
Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the classification of "Batasa", "Chiranji", and "Mishri" for sales tax purposes. The question arises whether these products, made entirely of sugar, should be considered as sugar or as separate products manufactured from sugar. The court examined the definitions of sugar and sweetmeats under the relevant schedules of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The court held that products like "Batasa", "Chiranji", and "Mishri" cannot be classified as sugar under the Act. The court referred to previous judgments and dictionary definitions to support its conclusion that these products do not fall under the exempted category of sugar and are not considered sweetmeats under the Act.
2. The second issue pertains to the rejection of the assessee's account books and the subsequent assessment based on best judgment. The taxing authorities had rejected the account books of the assessee, alleging unreliability, and estimated the sugar used for manufacturing the products in question. The court found that the authorities had acted arbitrarily and without a reasonable basis in rejecting the account books and making the assessment. The court noted that the rejection was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The court emphasized that the assessee's explanation should have been accepted, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the controlled commodity status of sugar and the sales pattern of the products post-control lifting. The court deemed the rejection of account books and the estimation of sugar utilization to be unjustified and arbitrary. Consequently, the court directed that the parties bear their own costs of the reference.
In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh clarified the classification of "Batasa", "Chiranji", and "Mishri" for sales tax purposes and criticized the arbitrary rejection of the assessee's account books and the subsequent assessment based on best judgment.
-
1965 (1) TMI 60
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the petitioner under Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Determination of whether there was a complete transfer of business ownership.
3. Assessment of the role of goodwill in the transfer of business.
4. Evaluation of the evidence presented regarding the transfer of business.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of the Petitioner under Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur, and upheld by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Sales Tax Officer had held the petitioner liable for the payment of Rs. 6,970-78 nP., being the amount of tax and penalty levied on M/s. Rajasthan Paper Mart (hereinafter called the Mart), under Section 33 of the Act. The petitioner contended that he was not liable as he had merely purchased the goods in stock and not the entire business.
2. Determination of Whether There Was a Complete Transfer of Business Ownership:
The court examined whether the ownership of the Mart's business was entirely transferred to the petitioner. According to Section 33(1) of the Act, "When the ownership of the business of a dealer liable to pay the tax is entirely transferred, the transferor and the transferee shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the tax together with penalty." The court noted that for liability to be fastened under this provision, there must be a transfer of the ownership of the business as such, not merely the goods or material with which the business is carried on.
3. Assessment of the Role of Goodwill in the Transfer of Business:
The court emphasized that the transfer of a business implies the transfer of a running business together with all its rights, liabilities, stock-in-trade, and goodwill. The court cited legal definitions and precedents to assert that goodwill is an integral part of a business and cannot be sold apart from it. The Sales Tax Authorities had found that the goodwill of the Mart's business was not transferred to the petitioner, which the court held as a significant factor in determining that there was no complete transfer of business.
4. Evaluation of the Evidence Presented Regarding the Transfer of Business:
The court found that there was no material evidence before the Sales Tax Officer and the Additional Commissioner to conclude that the Mart transferred its business to the petitioner. The only material referred to was a receipt (exhibit A-1) produced by the petitioner, which clearly showed that the petitioner purchased only the stock-in-trade for Rs. 6,100 and did not take over any liabilities of the Mart. The court noted that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish that the Mart had transferred the ownership of its business to the petitioner, which they failed to do.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the ownership of the Rajasthan Paper Mart's business was not transferred to the petitioner when he purchased the stock of stationery paper, pencils, fountain-pens, etc., on 9th April, 1960. Consequently, the petitioner could not be held liable under Section 33 of the Act to pay the tax and penalty which the Mart was liable to pay. The petition was allowed, and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax were quashed. The petitioner was awarded costs of the application, and the outstanding amount of security deposit was ordered to be refunded to him.
Petition allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 59
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption from tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and Section 29 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.
2. Application of judicial mind by the Assessing Authority.
3. Appropriateness of using Article 226 for redressal.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption from Tax under Article 286(1)(b) and Section 29:
The core issue concerns whether the transactions in question qualify for exemption from tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and Section 29 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. Article 286(1)(b) states, "No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India." Similarly, Section 29 of the Punjab Act provides for exemption where the sale or purchase takes place in the course of import or export.
The petitioner argued that the cotton purchased in Punjab was for the purpose of export, thereby integrating the activities of purchase and export. Evidence was presented to the Assessing Authority showing that the cotton was exported from Bombay. However, the Assessing Authority did not accept this submission and imposed a purchase tax.
The court referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions, including State of Travancore-Cochin v. S.V.C. Factory and Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, which clarified that sales and purchases that occasion the export or import of goods fall within the exemption. The court emphasized that for a sale to be in the course of export, there must be an "inextricable connection or bond between the sale and the export," and the sale must itself occasion the export.
2. Application of Judicial Mind by the Assessing Authority:
The petitioner contended that the Assessing Authority did not exercise its independent judgment and was influenced by a letter from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The court examined this claim and found no evidence that the Assessing Authority failed to apply its own judicial mind. The court noted that the petitioner did not produce the letter or its substance, and the impugned order did not indicate that it was based on an executive command.
3. Appropriateness of Using Article 226 for Redressal:
The court reiterated that in taxation matters, parties should generally seek redress through the statutory machinery provided by the taxing statutes. The High Court is not an appellate authority on facts under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, and challenges to questions of fact should not be encouraged under Article 226. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to supersede the authority of the assessing hierarchy.
The court also addressed the petitioner's concern that an appeal would be an idle formality due to the alleged influence of the letter. The court dismissed this concern, asserting that the appellate authority would independently assess the evidence and apply the law without undue influence from any such letter.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the petitioner should seek redress through the statutory appellate machinery. The court found no merit in the contention that the Assessing Authority failed to apply its independent judgment or that the appellate process would be ineffective. The petitions were dismissed without costs.
-
1965 (1) TMI 58
Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 based on best judgment basis. Refund of sales tax collected from constituents. Interpretation and application of a Government Order dated 13th June, 1958. Jurisdiction of the Court to direct Sales Tax Authorities to comply with the Government Order.
Analysis:
The petitioners sought writs of certiorari to challenge the assessment orders made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56, which were later revised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner based on the account books returned by Sales Tax Authorities of Bombay. The petitioners refunded sales tax to their constituents post the Supreme Court's decision in the Bengal Immunity case. The State of Madras issued a Government Order directing the treatment of claims for refund of sales tax collected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal did not accept the evidence provided by the petitioners regarding the refund. The petitioners contended that their case fell within the purview of the Government Order and should not be assessed to tax.
The Court examined whether it could direct Sales Tax Authorities to comply with the Government Order. The Sales Tax Laws Validation Ordinance, 1956 validated sales tax collections up to 6th September, 1955. The Government Order aimed to provide relief to dealers who did not collect or refunded sales tax on inter-State transactions. The Court noted that the Board did not consider the merits of the petitioners' claim and did not ask for proof of compliance with the Government Order. The Court held that the assessing authorities failed to perform their duty by not scrutinizing the evidence presented by the petitioners. The Court concluded that the orders of the Board needed to be quashed, directing a reassessment by the appropriate authority based on the evidence provided by the petitioners.
In a previous case, the Court held that when a public authority is directed by a superior authority to perform a specific act, the refusal to perform that act can be corrected through the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The Court applied this principle to the present case, emphasizing the duty of assessing authorities to follow lawful directions issued by the government. The Court found that the assessing authorities failed to fulfill their duty in this case, leading to the quashing of the Board's orders and a direction for reassessment based on the evidence provided by the petitioners.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the Board's orders, and directed a reassessment by the appropriate authority in light of the evidence presented by the petitioners. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1965 (1) TMI 57
Whether the parties in the instant case, having regard to the circumstances of the case, intended to sell or buy the packing materials?
Whether the subject-matter of the contracts of sale was only the cigarettes and that the packing materials did not form part of the bargain at all, but were used by the seller as a convenient and cheap vehicle of transport?
Whether, when a trader in cigarettes sold cigarettes priced at a particular figure for a specified number and handed them over to a customer in a cheap card- board container of insignificant value, he intended to sell the cardboard container and the customer intended to buy the same?
Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand. The High Court may consider afresh the question whether the packing materials were the subject-matter of the agreements to sell, having regard to the relevant material and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. If in its opinion the necessary material is not on record it can get a finding from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in that regard.
-
1965 (1) TMI 49
Whether the transaction referred to in bill dated 29th June, 1955, is liable to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Reading the contract as a whole, we are in agreement with the High Court of Bombay that it is a contract for the sale of goods and not a contract for work and labour. It will be noticed that the bodies are spoken as composite bodies or as units throughout the contract and property in the bodies passes to the Government on delivery, and when the property passes the bodies are goods. The fact that a progress report had to be given only ensured prompt delivery. There is no clause in the agreement which militates against the contract being a contract for the sale of goods.
-
1965 (1) TMI 44
Whether a contract is one for execution of work or for performance of service, or is a contract for sale of goods?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The finding that the contract as a whole is a contract for the sale of goods. Agreeing with the High Court, we hold that the answer to the question referred is against the appellant. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. In the other two appeals relating to assessments for the quarters ending September 30, 1957, and December 31, 1957, the agreements are similar and these also fail and are dismissed with costs. There will be one set of hearing fee in all the three appeals.
-
1965 (1) TMI 41
Unable to read the stay order as implying that the respondent was obliged to deposit tax, for the stay order then would be of no utility to the assessee. Apart from that, the respondent did not file returns till December, 1959, and January-March, 1960, and section 7(2) could not be attracted till then.
We are not concerned with the question whether there has been any breach of section 16(1)(c), In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
-
1965 (1) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the director to borrow money on behalf of the company.
2. Compliance with internal management procedures of the company.
3. Application of Sections 9 and 292 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Burden of proof regarding the absence of a resolution authorizing the borrowing.
5. The principle of internal management and its implications for third-party creditors.
6. Presentment of the hundi for payment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Authority of the Director to Borrow Money on Behalf of the Company:
The main issue revolves around whether Naresh Chandra Mondal, the manager and director of the defendant company, had the authority to draw a hundi for Rs. 1,000 on behalf of the company. The trial court found that he did, based on the evidence presented, including the purchase of the stamp and the drawing of the hundi in the presence of the plaintiff. The Full Bench of the Small Cause Court, however, set aside the trial court's decree, concluding that there was no evidence of a resolution authorizing such borrowing, as required by Section 292 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Compliance with Internal Management Procedures of the Company:
The Full Bench of the Small Cause Court held that the articles of association of the defendant company were inconsistent with Section 292 of the Companies Act, which mandates that certain powers, including borrowing money, must be exercised by the board only through a resolution passed at a meeting. The judgment emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of such a resolution.
3. Application of Sections 9 and 292 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The Full Bench relied on Section 9 of the Companies Act, which states that the provisions of the Act override any contrary provisions in the company's memorandum or articles of association. They concluded that the articles authorizing directors to borrow money were void to the extent of their repugnancy to Section 292. However, the High Court found this interpretation erroneous, clarifying that the articles did not conflict with Section 292 as they did not specify the procedure for exercising the borrowing power.
4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Absence of a Resolution Authorizing the Borrowing:
The High Court ruled that the burden of proving the absence of a resolution authorizing the borrowing lay with the defendant company, not the plaintiff. The minute books and the book of resolutions are within the special knowledge and possession of the company, and their non-production led to an adverse inference against the company. The High Court cited Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the party with special knowledge of a fact.
5. The Principle of Internal Management and Its Implications for Third-Party Creditors:
The High Court emphasized the principle of internal management, which protects third-party creditors who lend money to a company based on the apparent authority of its directors and managers. The judgment referenced the case of Royal British Bank v. Turquand, which allows outsiders to assume that internal company procedures have been duly followed. The High Court held that the plaintiff, as a bona fide creditor, was entitled to rely on the apparent authority of Naresh Chandra Mondal to draw the hundi on behalf of the company.
6. Presentment of the Hundi for Payment:
The defendant company raised a last-minute argument that the hundi was not presented for payment. However, the High Court dismissed this claim, noting that it was not raised in the application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and that the record showed a demand letter and a reply from the defendant company acknowledging the hundi.
Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Small Cause Court and restored the decree of the trial court, which had ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court held that the plaintiff had proven his case and that the defendant company failed to disprove the authority of Naresh Chandra Mondal to draw the hundi. The principle of internal management protected the plaintiff as a bona fide creditor, and the burden of proving the absence of a resolution lay with the defendant company. The suit was decreed in full with costs against the first defendant company.
-
1965 (1) TMI 17
Whether the conduct of the affairs of a company by the majority shareholders was oppressive to the minority shareholders?
Held that:- The case of the appellant based on the agreement of July 27, 1954, therefore must fail and it must be held that even if that agreement was not carried out by the company, which was not bound by it, there can be no case of oppression of the appellant.
The slight delay in the payment of the full value of the shares cannot therefore in the circumstances be said to be so prejudicial to the interests of the company as to call for any action under section 398 of the Act. It has not been shown that view of certain actions taken by the new management without consulting the appellant, the company was landed in any difficulty and loss of profit which would show mismanagement of its affairs.
The appellant asked for production of certain documents in April, 1961, and those documents were made available for inspection by the appellant and were produced in court. It was for the appellant to take inspection of those documents if he so desired and the appeal court was right in pointing out that the learned single judge was not correct in drawing an adverse inference against the company that it had disobeyed the orders of the court and had not produced the documents called for and had given no opportunity to the appellant for their inspection. It seems to us that the appeal court was right in this view and no case has been made out even prima facie for action under this part of section 398 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 16
Whether High Court of Madras was correct in directing the winding up of the, appellant, the Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Limited?
We are satisfied that the debt in respect of which notice was given under section 434 was bona fide disputed by the appellant-company. The appellant-company had received legal advice and it had acted on it. On the facts it seems to us clear that the appellant-company did not dispute the debt in order to hide its inability to pay debts. Further we are satisfied that the question whether the declaration of dividend dated December 30, 1959, is valid or not raises a substantial question as to the interpretation of Section 207 of the Companies Act. Further, whether the declaration dated December 30, 1959, is severable or not is also a substantial question. We do not propose to decide whether the declaration of dividend was valid or not or whether it was severable or not, because in these proceedings we ware only concerned with the question whether the debt was bona fide disputed by the company on substantial grounds. If the debt was bona fide disputed, as we hold it was, there cannot be "neglect to pay" within section 434(1)(a ) of the Companies Act. If there is no neglect, the deeming provision does not come into play and the ground of winding up, namely, that the company is unable to pay its debts is not substantiated. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Provisional Assessment of Goods
2. Applicability of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
3. Validity of Demand Notices under Rule 10 and Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
4. Time Limitation for Demand of Short-levied Duty
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Provisional Assessment of Goods:
The primary question was whether the goods were assessed on a provisional basis. The petitioner company contended that the assessments were final and not provisional. The court noted that the abstracts of the Personal Ledger Accounts did not indicate that duties were imposed on a provisional basis. The court found it significant that the respondent No. 2 Inspector had marked certain A.R. 1 forms as "Provisional" after the fact, which was not originally the case. This action by the Inspector suggested an attempt to retroactively impose a provisional status on the assessments.
2. Applicability of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The petitioner argued that Rule 9B, which deals with provisional assessment, was not applicable as there was no request for provisional assessment, nor was there any execution of a B-10 or B-13 Bond at the material time. The court examined Rule 9B and found that the circumstances required for its application-such as the assessment involving two or more alternative bases or a request for provisional assessment-were absent. The bond executed by the petitioner on September 26, 1962, was found to be irrelevant to the assessments for the period from July 1961 to April 1962.
3. Validity of Demand Notices under Rule 10 and Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The court had to determine whether the demands for differential duty could be justified under Rule 10 or Rule 10A. Rule 10 deals with recovery of duties short-levied due to inadvertence, error, or misstatement, with a time limit of three months. Rule 10A is a residuary provision for recovery of sums due to the government where no specific rule applies. The court concluded that the case fell under Rule 10 because the alleged short-levy was due to misstatements regarding the value of the goods. Therefore, Rule 10A was not applicable.
4. Time Limitation for Demand of Short-levied Duty:
The court noted that under Rule 10, any demand for short-levied duty had to be made within three months from the date the duty was paid or adjusted in the owner's account. Since the demands were made beyond this three-month period, they were not sustainable. The court referenced its previous ruling in National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which supported this interpretation.
Judgment:
The court made the Rule absolute, quashing the notices of demand and restraining the respondents from enforcing them. The current account of the petitioner company was to be readjusted if any debits had been made in respect of the sums covered by the notices. A Writ of Certiorari and a consequential Writ of Mandamus were issued accordingly. No order as to costs was made.
-
1965 (1) TMI 2
Gift-tax Act, 1958 - "Whether the gift made by Sri Vadrevu Venkappa Rao who is a karta of the Hindu undivided family to his wife of a part of the Hindu undivided family property is exempt under section 5(1)(viii) of the Act ?" Question answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee
-
1965 (1) TMI 1
Amount received as dividend - assessee first credited this sum to the profit and loss appropriation account and, thereafter, transferred the same to a reserve fund - Whether the sum of Rs. 43,925 received by the assessee represented business income arising under s. 10 from an adventure in the nature of trade or it was a dividend within the meaning of s. 12
|
9911796707
