|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 79 Records
-
1968 (11) TMI 98
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "judgment" in Article 133(1) of the Constitution for the purpose of granting certificates for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the Bank of India Ltd. regarding a letter of credit opened in favor of a third party. The High Court of Madras initially granted the injunction, but it was later set aside in appeals under the Letters Patent. The plaintiffs then applied for a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and 133(1)(b) of the Constitution to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court granted the certificate, but the Supreme Court revoked it, emphasizing that an order granting an interim injunction is not considered a final order for the purpose of appeal certification. The Supreme Court clarified that a judgment or decree must involve a final adjudication by the court on the rights of the parties, and an interlocutory order, even if deciding an issue, does not qualify as a judgment. Various legal precedents were cited to support this interpretation, highlighting that a final order must dispose of the rights of the parties in dispute in a suit or proceeding.
The Supreme Court referred to past cases such as Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas RatanChand and Abdul Rahman v. D.K. Cassim & Sons to illustrate the concept of a final order as one that conclusively determines the rights of the parties in relation to the entire suit. The Court also cited S. Kuppusami Rao v. The King and Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd. and others v. Dominion India and others to emphasize that finality is determined by whether the order conclusively disposes of the rights of the parties in dispute. The judgment further discussed the applicability of recent cases like Mohanlal Maganlal Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, clarifying that the finality of an order is not dependent on the resolution of the entire controversy but on the conclusive disposition of the specific issue at hand.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that an order refusing to grant an interim injunction, like in the present case, does not qualify as a final order under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed the principle that for an order to be considered final, it must conclusively determine the rights and obligations of the parties in the suit or proceeding. As a result, the certificate granted by the High Court for appeal to the Supreme Court was revoked, and the plaintiffs were directed to pay the costs of the petitioners of the application for revocation of the certificate.
-
1968 (11) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of an irrevocable letter of credit.
2. Allegations of fraud and modification of the original contract.
3. Jurisdiction and maintainability of appeals.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Enforceability of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the enforceability of an irrevocable letter of credit. The Indian Firm opened a confirmed, irrevocable, and divisible letter of credit with the Bank of India for the entire value of the equipment supplied by the Russian Firm. According to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1962 Revision), an irrevocable credit constitutes a definite undertaking by the issuing bank to the beneficiary, binding the bank to fulfill the payment provisions as long as the terms and conditions of the credit are complied with. The Court emphasized the importance of this mechanism in international trade, stating that "any interference with that mechanism is bound to have serious repercussions on the international trade of this country." The court referred to several authoritative texts and cases, including Halsbury's Laws of England and Chalmers on "Bills of Exchange," which underscore that banks deal in documents and not in goods, and their obligation to pay is absolute if the terms of the credit are met.
2. Allegations of Fraud and Modification of the Original Contract:
The Indian Firm alleged that the performance of the machinery supplied by the Russian Firm was not as efficient as represented, leading to considerable loss. However, the Court found that these allegations did not amount to a plea of fraud. The Indian Firm also contended that the original contract was modified by a subsequent agreement (Delhi agreement) and correspondence, which purportedly altered the payment obligations. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the Delhi agreement merely provided for an attempt to settle disputes amicably and did not modify the original contract. The Court stated, "The Delhi agreement merely provided that the parties will try and settle the dispute out of court, if possible." The letter from the Russian Firm stating that "the final amount payable will be in accordance with the settlement" was interpreted as being conditional upon reaching a settlement, failing which the original contract terms would prevail.
3. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of Appeals:
The Indian Firm questioned the maintainability of the appeals filed by the Russian Firm before the Appellate Bench of the Madras High Court, arguing that the orders appealed against were not judgments within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court. The Appellate Bench had overruled this objection, following earlier decisions of the High Court. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal against the interim orders of the trial judge, thereby rendering it unnecessary to decide on the maintainability of the appeals before the High Court. The Court noted, "In view of the appeals filed by the Russian Firm in this Court against the interim orders made by the trial judge it is not necessary to decide whether the appeals filed by the Russian Firm before the Appellate Bench of the Madras High Court were maintainable."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Russian Firm (Civil Appeals Nos. 2305 and 2306 of 1968) and set aside the temporary injunctions granted by the trial judge, emphasizing the importance of upholding the autonomy of irrevocable letters of credit in international trade. The other appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 2251 and 2252 of 1968) filed by the Indian Firm were dismissed. The costs were to be borne by the Indian Company.
-
1968 (11) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner.
2. Abdication of statutory functions.
3. Nature of the proceeding (quasi-judicial or administrative).
4. Compliance with natural justice.
5. Allegations of mala fide actions.
6. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner to pass the orders excluding 99 villages from the reserved area. The High Court concluded that the Cane Commissioner had the power to make, modify, or cancel reservations under Clause 6 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, in view of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
2. Abdication of Statutory Functions:
The appellant argued that the Cane Commissioner had abdicated his statutory functions by merely implementing the directions of the Chief Minister. The High Court rejected this contention, but the Supreme Court found that the Cane Commissioner acted as the mouthpiece of the Chief Minister and did not exercise his statutory discretion independently. The Supreme Court held that the orders were invalid as they were effectively made by an authority not recognized under Clause 6 read with Clause 11 of the Order.
3. Nature of the Proceeding:
The High Court considered the proceeding before the Cane Commissioner as administrative. However, the Supreme Court determined that the proceeding was quasi-judicial because it involved a dispute (lis) between the appellant and the 5th respondent, requiring objective criteria for resolution. The modification of the reservation had serious repercussions on the appellant's mill, affecting its interests adversely.
4. Compliance with Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned orders were made without affording a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to the representations made by the 5th respondent or the proposal to split the reserved area. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were contravened as the appellant was not heard on the crucial issue of modifying the reservation.
5. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions:
The High Court rejected the plea of mala fide actions. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the orders were already found invalid on other grounds.
6. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The High Court found no violation of Article 14. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue extensively, having already invalidated the orders on the grounds of abdication of statutory functions and non-compliance with natural justice.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned orders. It held that the orders were invalid as they were made by the Chief Minister, not the Cane Commissioner, and the proceeding was quasi-judicial, requiring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The State of Bihar and the 5th respondent were ordered to pay the costs of the appellant in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
-
1968 (11) TMI 95
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of ex-U.P. sales in the gross turnover for tax liability determination under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act in relation to Article 286 of the Constitution.
3. Applicability of Rule 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of ex-U.P. Sales in Gross Turnover:
The primary issue was whether sales made outside Uttar Pradesh should be included in the gross turnover for determining the tax liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessee argued that if the turnover of ex-U.P. sales was excluded, the remaining turnover would fall below the taxable limit, thus exempting them from tax. The Sales Tax Officer disagreed, including the ex-U.P. sales in the gross turnover but exempting them from tax under Section 27.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 and Article 286:
The court emphasized that Section 27 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which aligns with Article 286 of the Constitution, explicitly prohibits the imposition of tax on sales made outside the state. This section overrides other provisions of the Act, including the definitions of "sale" and "turnover" in Sections 2(h) and 2(i). The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, which stated that transactions falling under Article 286 are outside the purview of the Act and cannot be included in the turnover for tax assessment.
3. Applicability of Rule 8:
Rule 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, which determines liability based on gross turnover, was also considered. The court rejected the argument that ex-U.P. sales could be included in the gross turnover to determine tax liability for other sales. The Supreme Court's ruling in A.V. Fernandez clarified that non-taxable sales should be excluded from the gross turnover calculation.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that ex-U.P. sales should not be included in the gross turnover for determining tax liability under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The turnover of sales made outside Uttar Pradesh by the assessee cannot be included in the turnover of the dealer for the purposes of the first proviso to Section 3(1). The assessee was entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 200.
Separate Judgments:
- PATHAK, J.: Emphasized the constitutional prohibition under Article 286 and the overriding effect of Section 27 on other provisions of the Act.
- BEG, J.: Agreed with Pathak, J., and highlighted the legislative intent to exempt turnovers below Rs. 12,000 from sales tax.
- GULATI, J.: Added that Rule 8 should be interpreted to exclude non-taxable sales from the gross turnover calculation, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in A.V. Fernandez.
Final Decision:
The court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, stating that ex-U.P. sales cannot be included in the turnover for tax liability purposes. The assessee was awarded costs assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1968 (11) TMI 94
Issues: Classification of hospital equipment as furniture under U.P. Sales Tax Act.
The judgment delivered by the Court addressed the classification of various hospital equipment items manufactured and sold by the assessee under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer initially categorized the items as furniture, subjecting them to a higher tax rate under a specific notification. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax allowed the appeal only in respect of operation tables, ruling that they could not be considered furniture. Subsequently, the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax dismissed the revision application, leading to the current reference to the High Court to determine whether the remaining articles constituted unclassified items chargeable under section 3 or fell under the category of furniture under section 3-A of the Act.
The Court analyzed the definition of "furniture" as per Notification No. ST-905/X and various dictionaries, emphasizing that furniture includes articles used for convenience or decoration in a house or apartment. The revenue contended that the hospital equipment in question could also be used in a dwelling place, justifying their classification as furniture. However, the Court noted the absence of detailed descriptions, designs, or equipment of the items in the record provided by the revenue. The assessee presented catalogues depicting the items as modern hospital equipment, specially designed for hospital use. Despite some similarities to domestic items, the Court highlighted the lack of clarity in distinguishing between the two types of beds supplied by the assessee.
The Court critiqued the revenue's argument that the design and equipment of the articles did not preclude their use as furniture, emphasizing that the test should focus on whether the items are ordinarily used and accepted as furniture in the general sense. It rejected the notion that items capable of being used as furniture should be classified as such, emphasizing the importance of understanding the popular perception of furniture within the mercantile community and consumer public. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the articles in question should not be classified as furniture under the notification and should be treated as chargeable items under section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, who was awarded costs and counsel's fees.
-
1968 (11) TMI 93
Issues:
1. Deduction of freight charges claimed by the petitioner under rule 6(4)(f)(i) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules.
2. Disallowance of the deduction by the Commercial Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the location of the contract and delivery of goods.
3. Interpretation of rule 6(4)(f)(i) regarding the deduction of freight charges when specified and charged separately.
4. Consideration of the agreement between the petitioner and the purchaser for delivery of goods and payment of transportation charges.
5. Legitimacy of adding a sum of money to the total turnover determined as suppressed amount in the assessment.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where a firewood dealer in Uppinangady claimed a deduction of freight charges under rule 6(4)(f)(i) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules for the year 1961-62. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the deduction, a decision upheld by the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing the absence of proof regarding the completion of the sale inside the forest or delivery to the purchaser at the collection spot. However, the Court emphasized that the crucial factor for the deduction was the separate specification and charging of freight in the bills, not the location of the contract or delivery. The Court ruled that as long as freight was specified and charged separately in the invoices and not included in the sale price, the deduction was permissible under rule 6(4)(f)(i).
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the misconception of the tax authorities that freight could only be deducted if goods were delivered inside the forest to the purchaser. The Court reasoned that including transportation charges in the bills indicated that the delivery was at the factory, making it unnecessary for the petitioner to transport the goods further. The agreement between the petitioner and the purchaser, as evidenced in correspondence, supported the claim for deduction as it outlined the delivery at the factory with the purchaser bearing transportation charges. The Court found no basis to deny the deduction based on the location of delivery or alleged shortages at the factory.
Regarding the suppressed amount added to the total turnover by the Commercial Tax Officer, the Court deemed it illegitimate, especially after a best judgment assessment had been conducted. The Court directed the exclusion of this amount from the assessment and instructed the Commercial Tax Officer to prepare an amended assessment order in line with the judgment. The petitioner was awarded costs, including advocate's fees. Ultimately, the Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the previous decisions disallowing the deduction of freight charges and ordering the deletion of those charges from the assessment.
-
1968 (11) TMI 92
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act on the petitioner.
2. Allegations of committing offences under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of the Act.
3. Appeal process leading to limited relief in penalty.
4. Request to quash the orders made by the authorities.
5. Interpretation of clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 for penalty imposition.
6. Examination of false representation and misuse of purchased goods.
7. Lack of findings by the authorities on essential elements for penalty imposition.
8. Imperfections in the orders of the authorities and subsequent relief granted.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Mysore, delivered by Justice Somnath Iyer, addressed the case where the Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violations under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner, a dealer registered under section 7 of the Act, faced charges related to the purchase of goods not covered by the registration certificate and misuse of purchased goods. The court highlighted the necessity of proving intentional false representation under clause (b) and the absence of reasonable excuse for misuse under clause (d) for penalty imposition.
The court emphasized that an offence under clause (b) is established only when a registered dealer knowingly makes a false representation that the goods purchased are covered by the registration certificate. The judgment referenced a previous ruling to clarify the essential element of intentional misrepresentation. It criticized the Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for not providing findings on whether the petitioner made a false representation during the purchases, rendering the penalty unsustainable. The court stressed the importance of a deliberate misrepresentation for clause (b) violations.
Regarding the allegations under clause (d), the court outlined the three essential elements for proving misuse of purchased goods without reasonable excuse. It pointed out the failure of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to establish that the goods were purchased for the specified purpose, were not used accordingly, and lacked a reasonable excuse for the failure. The court noted the absence of findings on these crucial elements, leading to an unsupportable conclusion of an offence under clause (d).
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the imperfections in the orders of the authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, for overlooking the deficiencies in the penalty imposition process. Ultimately, the court set aside the orders and directed the refund of the penalty amount if already recovered. The judgment concluded by not making any specific directions regarding costs, allowing the petition of the petitioner.
In summary, the High Court's decision focused on the necessity of establishing intentional false representation and lack of reasonable excuse for misuse to impose penalties under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of authorities providing clear findings on essential elements before confirming penalty imposition, ultimately leading to the quashing of previous orders and granting relief to the petitioner.
-
1968 (11) TMI 91
Issues:
Interpretation of deductions under the Central Sales Tax Act and Mysore Sales Tax Act, applicability of rules in determining taxable turnover, conflict between rules made under the Central Act and State law.
Analysis:
The case involved Canara Workshops Ltd., challenging the Deputy Commissioner's decision to enhance tax for assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 based on deductions made by the Commercial Tax Officer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The issue revolved around whether tax collected by a dealer under the Mysore Act constitutes part of the taxable turnover under that Act, and consequently under the Central Act.
The Court emphasized the interpretation of section 9(3) of the Central Act, stating that tax is payable under the Central Act only if it would have been payable under the general sales tax law of the State. The Court highlighted the importance of rules made under the Mysore Act, specifically rule 6(4)(h), which excludes tax collected by a dealer under the Mysore Act from the taxable turnover. This exclusion principle was deemed applicable to the Central Act as well.
A key argument raised was whether rule 11(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, provided an exhaustive provision for deductions in determining taxable turnover. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the rule merely supplements State rules and does not displace them. The judgment referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the view that other deductions allowed by the general sales tax law of the State must still be made, despite specific deductions authorized by the Central Rules.
The Court highlighted the Tribunal's error in assuming the deduction of Central tax was claimed under a deleted clause of the Central Rules, clarifying that the deduction was in line with the Mysore Rules and section 9(3) of the Central Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision petitions, overturning the Deputy Commissioner and Tribunal's orders and restoring the determinations made by the Commercial Tax Officer as lawful.
In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of Canara Workshops Ltd., emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed rules under the State and Central Acts in determining taxable turnover. The judgment clarified the relationship between State and Central rules, ensuring that both sets of rules are applied in harmony to calculate tax liabilities accurately.
-
1968 (11) TMI 90
Issues:
- Refund of licence fee contrary to Sales Tax Act
- Maintainability of suits in civil court under section 51 of Madras General Sales Tax Act
Analysis:
The judgment involves two second appeals arising from suits filed by two appellants seeking a refund of licence fees collected from them against the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The appellants, engaged in paddy and rice business with a commission agency, were directed by Sales Tax Authorities to obtain agency licences. The appellants sought refund of licence fees collected for earlier years after the department discovered the error in collecting fees. The department refunded the fee for the current year but refused for previous years, leading to the appellants filing suits, which were dismissed based on section 51 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
The main issue in the second appeals was the maintainability of the suits in civil court. The lower appellate court found the suits to be in time. The appellants argued that the suits were not barred under section 51 of the Act, citing a Supreme Court decision stating that a party paying tax under a mistake of law is entitled to recover the amount. The appellants contended that the payment of licence fee was not voluntary, as they were compelled by authorities under threat of action. They relied on a Supreme Court case emphasizing that actions by authorities must be within the scope of the Act, and without a provision for levying licence fees, the collection was without jurisdiction.
The judgment further discussed the principles outlined in the case law, emphasizing that where a statute lacks a mechanism for refunding illegally collected taxes, a civil suit is permissible. Applying these principles to the case, the court concluded that the Sales Tax Authorities lacked the power to collect licence fees from the appellants, who paid under a mistake of law. As such, the appellants were deemed entitled to recover the fees, and the court allowed the second appeals, decreeing in favor of the appellants for refund of the amounts.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the rights of taxpayers to seek refunds of amounts paid under a mistake of law, emphasizing the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases where statutory authorities act beyond their powers. The decision in this case underscores the importance of legal compliance and the right of individuals to challenge unauthorized actions through appropriate legal channels.
-
1968 (11) TMI 89
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 8(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.
2. Validity of deductions claimed under Section 8(b).
3. Requirement of certificates in Form J.
4. Timing of obtaining and issuing certificates in Form J.
5. Burden of proof on selling and purchasing dealers.
6. Relevance of despatch of goods.
7. Implications of Section 10(b) and Section 39A.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 8(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953:
The court examined the changes in Section 8(b) over different periods and noted that the relevant provision applicable during the period in question required a certificate declaring that the goods sold were intended for sale in inter-State trade or commerce or export. The court emphasized that the scheme had been altered from previous periods where the focus was on the despatch of goods outside the state.
2. Validity of Deductions Claimed Under Section 8(b):
The court held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction from turnover in respect of sales of goods to a dealer who holds an authorization and furnishes the relevant certificate. The court rejected the notion that there was any implied time limit for furnishing such certificates, noting that the statute did not prescribe a specific time frame for this.
3. Requirement of Certificates in Form J:
The court noted that the certificate in Form J must declare that the goods purchased are intended for sale in inter-State trade or commerce or export. The certificate must be issued by the purchasing dealer at a time when the goods are yet to be sold.
4. Timing of Obtaining and Issuing Certificates in Form J:
The court rejected the requirement that the certificate must be issued within six months from the date of sale or before the date of despatch of goods. The court emphasized that the relevant provision did not require the despatch of goods to be considered for the deduction under Section 8(b).
5. Burden of Proof on Selling and Purchasing Dealers:
The court clarified that the burden of proving that the goods were sold in inter-State trade or commerce or export within six months lies with the purchasing dealer. The selling dealer is entitled to deductions upon producing the certificate in Form J, and there is no obligation on the selling dealer to prove the timing of the certificate issuance.
6. Relevance of Despatch of Goods:
The court found that the despatch of goods was not relevant under the applicable provision of Section 8(b) for the period in question. The focus was on the intention of sale in inter-State trade or commerce or export, not on the actual despatch of goods.
7. Implications of Section 10(b) and Section 39A:
Section 10(b) imposes a liability for purchase tax if the goods are not sold within six months in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or export. Section 39A provides penalties for false declarations. The court noted that these provisions ensure that the purchasing dealer is held accountable, and the selling dealer's right to deduction is not affected by the purchasing dealer's failure to comply.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the claims on the grounds that the certificates in Form J were not shown to have been issued before the date of despatch or within six months from the date of sale. The references were answered in favor of the assessee, with costs awarded and deposits refunded.
-
1968 (11) TMI 88
The High Court allowed the Letters Patent appeal challenging an order under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, leading to the quashing of the impugned order by the joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab. The order of the Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner was restored, and the order of the Single judge was set aside.
-
1968 (11) TMI 87
Issues:
Prohibition sought by Indian Insurance Companies' Association Pool against the assessment of sales tax on salvage sales made through an agency. Whether the petitioner is liable to register as a dealer and submit to the jurisdiction of Sales Tax Authorities.
Analysis:
The Indian Insurance Companies' Association Pool, Madras, filed a petition seeking prohibition against the assessment of sales tax on salvage sales made through an agency during the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64. The pool was formed by an agreement involving several registered insurance companies. The petitioner contended that it is not a dealer and that the sales of salvage through an agency should not attract sales tax. The agreement establishing the pool outlined its functions as a super insurance company and a clearing house for the constituent insurance companies. The pool collected salvage of goods as part of its business in insurance indemnity. The court noted that the sale of salvage was incidental to the insurance business and not a regular business proposition of the pool. Therefore, if the pool only sold salvage collected incidentally, it would not be considered a dealer under the Sales Tax Act.
The court refrained from issuing a prohibition at that moment, stating that the revenue authorities have the initial jurisdiction to examine the circumstances to determine if the pool is liable for sales tax. The court emphasized that if the facts presented by the petitioner are accurate, the revenue should proceed on the basis that there is no liability for sales tax, and the petitioner would not need to register as a dealer. The court encouraged cooperation between the pool and the revenue authorities to clarify the situation. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, with no order as to costs, subject to the observations made regarding the liability for sales tax on salvage sales made by the pool through an agency.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of whether the Indian Insurance Companies' Association Pool should be liable for sales tax on salvage sales made through an agency. The court analyzed the nature of the pool's business, its functions under the agreement, and the incidental nature of selling salvage in the insurance business. The court refrained from immediately prohibiting the revenue authorities from proceeding, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the circumstances. The judgment highlighted the importance of cooperation between the pool and the revenue authorities to clarify the liability for sales tax.
-
1968 (11) TMI 86
Whether the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay?
Whether this court will inquire into belated and stale claims or take note of evidence of neglect of one's own rights for a long time?
Held that:- Petition dismissed. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in 1958 clearly shows that the merits of the petitioners' claim were not being examined. I can however find no merit in the contention that because there is an invasion of a fundamental right of a citizen he can be allowed to come to this court, no matter how long after the infraction of his right he applies for relief. The Constitution is silent on this point; nor is there any statute of limitation expressly applicable, but nevertheless, on grounds of public policy I would hold that this court should not lend its aid to a litigant even under article 32 of the Constitution in case of an inordinate delay in asking for relief and the question of delay ought normally to be measured by the periods fixed for the institution of suits under the Limitation Acts.
-
1968 (11) TMI 85
Whether or not the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board is a dealer within the meaning of section 2(c) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, and section 2(d) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, in respect of its activity of generation, distribution, sale and supply of electrical energy?
Whether or not steam is salable goods and if they are salable goods is the turnover representing the supply thereof liable to be assessed to sales tax in the hands of the assessee?
Held that:- Appeal partly allowed. On the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court we are of the opinion that the arrangement relating to supply of steam in return for the water supplied by the mills on payment of actual cost was not one of sale but was more in the nature of a works contract.
In the result the answer of the High Court to the first question is discharged and it is held that the Electricity Board is a "dealer" within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the two Acts in respect of its activities of generation, distribution, sale and supply of electric energy.
-
1968 (11) TMI 71
Whether on the facts set out in the show cause notices, which facts have to be assumed to be correct for the purpose of these proceedings, the respondents can be held to have contravened section 12(1)?
Held that:- The fact that the exporter may be proceeded under section 12(2) for non-payment of the full amount payable by the foreign buyer, or that the Reserve Bank can in the eventualities mentioned in section 12(5) require the holding up of shipping documents or that the Reserve Bank by exercising powers under section 12(6) secure contracts and other evidence to discover the full amount payable do not throw any light on the construction of section 23A and section 12(1) except that the legislature is anxious that the "full export value" shall be received in this country. Section 23A read with section 12(1) calls in aid of customs authorities to achieve the same object, but ropes in along with the exporter the persons concerned in the prohibited export.
Unable to appreciate how the existence of section 167(37), section 167(72) and section 167(81) is of any assistance for the purpose of interpreting section 23A and section 12(1) of the Exchange Act. It may be —I do not decide it—that an exporter, like the respondents, will also be liable to be proceeded against under these items of section 167.
Taking the facts as alleged by the customs authorities to be true, as they must be taken to be true for the purpose of this application under article 226, it seems to me that no case for the issue of a writ of prohibition has been made out. In the result the judgment of the appeal court is reversed and that of the learned single judge restored.
-
1968 (11) TMI 63
Whether the mills did not yield profits because of the Jalans having parted with the processing unit to Jhunjhunwalas?
Whether the closure of the mills was due to the Jalans having starved them of finance?
Whether a scheme sanctioned by the court being binding on the company, its shareholders and the creditors, anything done contrary to its provisions is ultra vires the company?
Held that:- The Jalans gave several reasons why the accounts could not be produced. Whether they were true or not, even if the accounts had been produced they could not have thrown any light as no separate accounts were kept of the income and expenditure of the unit in 1964-65. But then if the unit was the most profit-yielding unit and had made large profit in 1964-65 one wonders why Singhania should have applied for permission to sell or lease it. It is also difficult to believe that the Jalans would let out the unit at a norminal consideration only a month after they had restarted the mills as in the beginning at any rate they were genuinely interested in working the mills and implementing the scheme unless of course the allegation that Jhunjhunwalas were their nominees was true. But, as the appeal court has rightly said, no proof was offered in support of that allegation.
It was not as if the mills had to be worked even if their working resulted in loss. Assuming that the Jalans were under an obligation to bring in finance including their own monies, they could not be said to be under an obligation to bring in finance even if the working of the mills showed no reasonable prospect of profit. If the mills could not be worked except at a loss the company would be justified in ceasing to work them. The very object of the company being to manufacture cloth, if the mills had to be closed that would mean that the very object for which the company existed and which also was the assumption on which the scheme was framed ceased to exist.
The claim urged on behalf of schedule 'B' creditors that they had a charge irrespective of the proposed mortgage and were entitled to be treated as secured creditors cannot therefore be upheld.There is no question of the appellants having done something on the faith of an act, the court, the appellants and the other schedule ' B ' creditors having agreed to a postponement of repayment to them in consideration of an agreement between them and the company providing for a second mortgage in their favour.
On the findings by the appeal court that the company was commercially insolvent and that the scheme could not satisfactorily be worked with or without modifications, the only alternative for that court was to pass the winding-up order under section 392(2). The appeal court was right in ordering winding up of the company and we uphold that order
-
1968 (11) TMI 62
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Period of limitation under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 45H of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
3. Interpretation of "period of limitation" and its exclusions.
4. Sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Misapplication of Section 458A of the Companies Act by the liquidator.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the case at hand. The judgment noted, "I have little doubt that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies in a case like this." However, the court was not satisfied that there was "sufficient cause" to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application.
2. Period of Limitation under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, and Section 45H of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949:
The application was filed under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 45H of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The court highlighted that the period of limitation for directors is prescribed by sub-section (2) of Section 45-O of the Banking Regulation Act, and for other officers, by sub-section (2) of Section 543 of the Companies Act. The relevant periods are:
- For directors: "twelve years from the date of the accrual of such claims or five years from the date of the first appointment of the liquidator, whichever is longer."
- For other officers: "five years from the date of the order for winding up, or of the first appointment of the liquidator in the winding up, or of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, as the case may be, whichever is longer."
3. Interpretation of "Period of Limitation" and its Exclusions:
The court discussed the interpretation of the "period of limitation" and emphasized that the Limitation Act, 1963, has a residuary provision (Article 137) that applies to all applications for which no specific period is prescribed. The judgment referenced the case of Manager, P. K. Porwall v. Labour Court, which elaborated on the applicability of Article 137 to all applications. The court concluded that the provisions for limitation in the Companies Act and the Banking Regulation Act are special laws, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable in this case.
4. Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The court examined whether there was "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing the application. The liquidator's justification was based on a mistaken belief that Section 458A of the Companies Act allowed for the exclusion of certain periods, thus extending the time limit. The court found this reasoning flawed, stating, "How anybody could have thought that the exclusion of a period anterior to the starting point for limitation...could have the effect of postponing the date within which a proceeding has to be instituted, I am quite unable to understand." The court concluded that the liquidator's mistake was a mistake of law and that he did not act with "due care and attention."
5. Misapplication of Section 458A of the Companies Act by the Liquidator:
The liquidator claimed that the periods referred to in Section 458A of the Companies Act could be excluded, extending the time for filing the application. The court rejected this argument, noting that the period from the commencement of the winding up to the date of the winding up order could not be excluded to extend the limitation period. The court also pointed out that the liquidator did not seek legal advice before forming his mistaken belief, which further weakened his case for condonation of delay.
Conclusion:
The application was dismissed due to the lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The court emphasized that a mistake of law, especially one made without seeking legal advice, does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The judgment concluded with, "I dismiss this application, but make no order as to costs."
-
1968 (11) TMI 48
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any taxable gift of the 208 "B" shares and 8 "A" shares in Palani Andavar Mills for the assessment year 1959-60.
2. Whether the value of the property gifted should be restricted to the life interest of the donor in the said shares as on March 31, 1959.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxable Gift of Shares:
The primary issue was whether the inclusion of Rs. 38,880 for gift-tax was proper, representing the total value of 208 "B" shares and 8 "A" shares held by the assessee in Udumalpet Palani Andavar Mills Limited. The shares were registered in the name of the assessee, who received dividends and included them in his taxable income. The value was added to his return for gift-tax purposes based on two settlement deeds dated April 11, 1951, and March 31, 1959, which purportedly transferred the shares to his daughter. The Tribunal found that the assessee had done everything in his power to divest himself of his title to the shares, constituting a completed gift to his daughter.
The court noted that under section 3 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, gift-tax is payable for gifts made voluntarily and without consideration. The second settlement deed explicitly stated that a gift of the shares was made absolutely to the daughter. Despite the life interest retained in the first settlement deed, all parties consented to the second settlement deed, which was compliant with section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court concluded that there was a valid transfer of the shares to the daughter, constituting a gift.
2. Registration of Shares and Valid Transfer:
The assessee contended that without registration of the shares in the company's books in the daughter's name, there was no valid transfer. The court examined section 82 of the Companies Act and relevant case law, including Societe Generate De Paris v. Walker, Milroy v. Lord, and Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The court found that while the transferor remains the holder of the shares for company purposes until registration, the transfer of interest in the shares can be valid between the transferor and transferee without registration. The court cited Rose, In re: Rose v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, which held that a transferor who has done everything in his power to transfer shares creates a valid gift, even if registration is pending.
3. Life Interest vs. Entire Interest:
The court addressed whether the gift comprised only the life interest of the assessee. It noted that the first settlement deed retained a life interest but was not in the form requisite for a valid transfer of shares. The second settlement deed, executed with the consent of all parties, transferred the entire interest in the shares to the daughter. The court concluded that the second settlement deed effected a complete transfer of the shares.
Conclusion:
The court held that the inclusion of the total value of the shares for gift-tax purposes was correct and answered both questions against the assessee. The court affirmed that there was a completed gift of the shares to the daughter, notwithstanding the lack of registration in the company's books. The transfer under the 1959 settlement deed was of the entire interest in the shares, not just the life interest. The assessee was liable for the gift-tax on the full value of the shares as of March 31, 1959.
-
1968 (11) TMI 41
Income-tax Officer found that besides these shares, the assessee's wife and two sons held certain shares of the Associated Hotels of India Ltd and the Northern India Caterers Ltd. and he included the gross dividends thereof for the year 1953-54 and the net dividends thereof for the year 1934-55 in the total income of the assessee - since assessee has admitted that he is the real owner of these shares, the dividends had to be assessed in his hands
-
1968 (11) TMI 40
Assessee taking over business as going concern - payment made towards pension to some employees who had served for long - expenses were made to protect their goodwill(capital asset) and defending it against possible competition - even if expenditure was made to protect their capital assets, still it can be classed as a business expenditure
|
9911796707
