|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 126 Records
-
1975 (11) TMI 159 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ause both the periods mentioned in the statute have long passed. The law provides that the Sales Tax Officer may, if he is so advised, retain copies of the documents but he is under no circumstances authorised to retain them beyond a period of 60 days. The seizure of the documents being against the mandatory provision of law has to be set aside and we order accordingly. The documents mentioned at S. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 will be returned forthwith to the petitioner-factory. It will also be entitled to costs of this petition, which are assessed at Rs. 200. Regarding the documents mentioned at S. No. 4, no relief can be given to the petitioner-factory in these proceedings because the Income-tax Officer, who impounded this document has not been impleaded as a party. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner-factory to seek the appropriate relief by making an application to the said authority or by availing of other remedies which may be available to it under law. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd protecting the same from rainy water and other vicissitudes of nature. These distribution boxes can under no circumstances be treated as containers as contended by Mr. Anantha Babu. A container, in the ordinary parlance, cannot be considered to be a distribution box manufactured for a specific purpose with a particular metal which required specifications. A container is one which can be normally used for storing or carrying any article or goods. The distribution box would always be with the meter, fuses, cleats, screws and others. It would not be separate. Even assuming that a meter can be used without the distribution box, from the nature and character of the distribution box, we must hold that it is a necessary adjunct without which the meter cannot be effectively, safely and usefully made use of. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal and the T.R.C. merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 157 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts. In support of this contention, Mr. Shah referred us to the decision in Santumal v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax 1963 14 S.T.C. 287 at 297-298. decided by a Division Bench of this Court. Although this contention does not appear to us to be without merits, it is not open to us to go into the same, because the question referred to us is only as to whether the finding that the sales made to M/s. Keshavji Hirji were not genuine is contrary to the rules of natural justice, arbitrary, perverse and Illegal. In the result, in our view, the question posed for our consideration must be answered in the affirmative. As far as the costs are concerned, taking into account the length of time for which the matter has gone on and the fact that both the sides have briefed more than one counsel, we think that it is proper that the respondent should be directed to pay to the applicants a sum of Rs. 1,500 as the quantified costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (11) TMI 156 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and would not be violative of the legislative intent. So far as the second part of the prayers of the petition, namely, injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the certificate mentioned in paragraph 30 of the petition is concerned, it can hardly be disputed that the petitioner is entitled to the same and the said certificates should not be enforced. In the premises, there will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) and the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer is directed to refund to the petitioner the sums of money, which the petitioner has paid for the various years for which due evidence would be produced before the respondentCommercial Tax Officer. There will also be an order in terms of prayer (f) restraining the respondents from enforcing the certificate mentioned therein. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Let there be a stay for operation of this order for six weeks from date. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 155 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d for the manufacture of oil. It is only those commodities which are in commercial circles dealt with as oilseeds that are covered by the entry and not every seed from which by some process or other oil could be extracted. If we apply these decisions, certainly fried groundnut kernel could not be held to be an oil-seed. When it is fried, the germinating property in the groundnut kernel is lost. Most of the oil content, if not all, is also lost by frying. In commercial parlance also, fried groundnut is not dealt with as an oil-seed. We are, therefore, of the view that fried groundnut kernel could not be treated as an oil-seed liable to single point tax as declared goods under item 6 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and it is liable to multi-point tax at 2 frac12 per cent. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the assessment order is confirmed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 154 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed that the life of the present legislature would start from the date when it was elected. Moreover, we think that when a legislature has power to make retrospective laws there is no legal limitation on it as to the date from which it would affect retrospectively the right of the citizens. The third point was that since appeals are pending against the original assessments made at the rate of 2 per cent it would be the appellate authority under section 9(3) of the Act which will enhance the assessment in accordance with the amended law if applicable and the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner by a notice under section 21 of the Act. This is a fallacious argument. It is settled law that the appellate authority while exercising its jurisdiction under section 9(3) of the Act does not take into consideration new circumstances and new material it is confined to the material on the record. This petition has no force. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 153 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imposed on the dealer. A discretion, which is in the nature of a judicial discretion, must be exercised by the officer before determining the quantum of penalty. The learned Judge has also directed this aspect of the matter to be borne in mind by the officer, if he determines to impose a penalty on the dealer. 8.. In the light of the above, we confirm the judgment under appeal in so far as it set aside exhibit P6. We hold that there has been no violation of sub-section (b) of section 10. The question whether there has been a violation of sub-section (d) of section 10 will be considered by the officer concerned afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the dealer. The officer will also determine the quantum of penalty to be imposed in the light of what is stated above, if he decides that a penalty has to be imposed. We allow these appeals to the extent indicated and dispose of them on the above terms. We direct the parties to bear their costs. Appeals partly allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e word scent or perfume , the particular article must be capable of vaporisation at the ordinary or normal temperature of the atmosphere, therefore, could not be accepted. Dhoop or dhoopbattis do not vaporate under atmospheric temperature alone. Therefore, that could not be put as a test by itself though that might also be a relevant test. In this case, the Tribunal had tested the sample and before us also the sample of these articles were produced. We find that it emanates a sweet and pleasant smell and it does not also appear to require sufficient heat for the odoriferous element to evaporate. Therefore, even the test propounded by this court in the decision, Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v. State of Madras 1965 16 S.T.C. 9., is satisfied. We, accordingly, hold that the articles in question are perfumes within the meaning of entry 51 of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax Act. We, accordingly, dismissed the petitions with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 151 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is not powerless to interfere at the very initial stage. Some of the activities of a person may be included in the definition of dealer while others may not. Where incidence of tax is sought to be attracted in respect of an activity for which a person cannot be called a dealer , the starting of proceedings under the Act would be wholly without jurisdiction and can be struck down. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirumagal Mills Ltd. 1972 29 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.). approved of the above principle. Accordingly, I quash the impugned notice vis-a-vis the revision sought to be made for banquet charges and cafeteria sales , but uphold the same vis-a-vis the rest of the items mentioned in the impugned notice. The rule is made absolute in the terms mentioned above and discharged vis-a-vis the items in respect of which I have held the notice to be valid. In view of the fact that there is partial success of both the parties, I make no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is admitted by the assessee that would clinch the matter in his favour in regard to the maintainability of the appeal. This view which we take is fortified by the amendment, which has now been introduced by the U.P. Legislature in section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. What it lays down under clause (a) to the proviso therein is that no appeal shall be entertained unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of the payment of not less than.........the amount of tax or fee due under this Act on the turnover of sales or purchases, as the case may be, admitted by the appellant in the returns filed by him or at any stage in any proceedings under this Act, whichever is greater. For the reasons discussed above, we answer the two questions referred in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. We assess the costs payable by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., to the assessee at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (11) TMI 149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ther the tax leviable comes under entry 55 of the First Schedule or the general provision contained in section 3. There could be no doubt that entries in the First Schedule being specific goods in respect of which a single point levy is prescribed, though they might be goods which come under the description of goods in section 3 they could be taxed only to single point and not to multi-point under the general provision of section 3 of the Act. Entry 55 of the First Schedule mentions all tractors and spare parts for those tractors as being liable for single point at the point of first sale in the State. The goods in question being parts of tractors, they will squarely come under entry 55 of the First Schedule and would be liable to tax under that entry. The revision petitions are accordingly allowed, the orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the assessment orders are confirmed. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 in each case. Petitions allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 148 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n inference that business was intended to be carried on in those goods, and the fact that unserviceable goods were sold and not stored so that badly needed space was available for the business of the assessee also could not lead to the inference that business was intended to be carried on in selling those goods. The principle indicated in the aforesaid decision equally applies to the facts of the case. On the evidence recorded in the forums below, the irresistible conclusion to reach is On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, disposal of used empty drums, used G.I. sheets, used and unserviceable hose pipes and used and rejected parts of machinery and other scrap materials was not in the course of business and the assessee was not a dealer qua these sales. Therefore, this part of the turnover was not exigible to sales tax. As success is divided, parties are directed to bear their respective costs of this reference. PANDA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1975 (11) TMI 147 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... equired that a notice under that Act may be served either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The notice in question was not served by post. It is beyond dispute that the procedure required for serving a summons of the Court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is more stringent than the provisions contained in rule 68 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. In view of this, the decision in that case is of no help to us in deciding the present case. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the present case that there was sufficient material on record which made it legitimate to infer that the person on whom the notice in question was served was the agent of the assessees. In the result, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The assessees to pay the costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 150. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (11) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... entitle persons like the assessee to show that they were not exclusively dealing in the products of country chekkus. We are not proceeding on any basis of onus either on the part of the revenue or the assessee. But, suffice it to say, that in this case the solitary instance covered by the slip, even assuming to be a sale, has not been shown to be dealt with as a dealer in groundnut kernel. So far as the assessee was concerned, he was flatly denying that it referred to any sale transaction, much less a sale transaction in the course of his business. There being no evidence that the sale, even assuming it to be a sale, was in the course of business of the assessee in groundnut kernel, the Board of Revenue was not legally correct in revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Board of Revenue is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 145 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d warehouse. That decision, therefore, will not come to the aid of the petitioner herein. The aspect relating to the nature and character of the countervailing duty or excise duty and the statutory liability to pay the same has not been considered by the learned Judge. Any observations made by the learned Judge contrary to the view taken by us in this case as well as T.R.C. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1974, etc., batch (Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 37 S.T.C. 418., with regard to the statutory liability on, and the duty of, the manufacturer or importer of liquor to pay excise duty or countervailing duty, as the case may be, must be considered to be erroneous and illegal. Such view must be held to be no longer good law. For all the reasons stated, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in favour of the State and against the assessee-petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 144 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll as the value of unserviceable gunnies were included in the total turnover of the assessee and the inclusion of those items in the taxable turnover of the assessee was not even disputed at that stage. The decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1969 24 S.T.C. 487 (S.C.). relied upon by the petitioner s counsel is distinguishable on facts. Therein it was held that the State cannot levy sales tax on railway freight if it is not made a part of the sale price. On the terms of the contract therein, the Supreme Court held that there was no obligation on the part of the company to pay the railway freight and the price received for sale of goods is the invoice amount less the freight charges. This decision does not advance the petitioner s plea. In the result, the tax revision cases and the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 143 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the Act by the amending Act are very well within the legislative power of the State Legislature. 5.. It is, however, argued by Sri W.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that on a true interpretation of the definition of the expression dealer occurring in the Act and the provisions of section 6B of the Act, the petitioners who are merely commission agents of several principals would not be liable to pay the additional tax because none of the principals on whose behalf they act is carrying on any business in which the total turnover exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. This contention does not relate to the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions. Whether the construction sought to be placed by Sri Joshi on the provisions of the statute has to be accepted or not will have to be decided by the authorities functioning under the Act. I do not, therefore, express any opinion on this question. 6.. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 142 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ith regard to section 6(b) of the amending Act, which introduces a new item 5-A, namely, watery coconuts, that it is specifically stated that tax is leviable at the point of last purchase during the period commencing from 1st August, 1963, and ending with 31st March, 1965. As far as section 6(a) of the amending Act, which deals with substitution of -coconuts of all varieties in item 5 is concerned, there is no such provision making it retrospective in operation. As far as the substitution of item 5 is concerned by the expression coconuts of all varieties it is only prospective. It is not permissible to read column 2-5-A into item 5. Apart from this we do not see any reason why copra cannot be considered to be included in the expression coconuts of all varieties . In our view, the expression coconuts of all varieties is wide enough to include copra . We, therefore, see no force in any of the contentions raised. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 141 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y exempted collection of any sales tax on the sale of powa, muramura and pelalu. Apparently they are considered as products of paddy obtained without undergoing any chemical process. I do not, therefore, think that any tax can be levied under section 5(1) of the Act thereby permitting multipoint tax. However, as I have said that they are products of paddy they fall under item 66(b) and, therefore, sales tax can be levied on the sale of these goods, viz., powa, muramura and pelalu as provided under entry 66(b) of the First Schedule. A mandamus shall, therefore, issue to the respondents to levy and collect sales tax on the petitioners on the sale of powa, muramura and pelalu in accordance with entry 66(a) or (b), as the case may be, depending on the condition that tax at the purchase point of paddy has already been paid or not under section 5(2)(b) of the Act. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition partly allowed.
-
1975 (11) TMI 140 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the department, has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Simpson and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras 1969 23 S.T.C. 379. , where it has been held that the phrase furniture of all types in entry 44 of Schedule 1 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is wide enough to cover all kinds of furniture and is not confined to furniture used in homes and offices and therefore garage stools are within that entry. There can be no quarrel with this decision. It is nobody s case here that a dental chair should not be regarded as a furniture merely because it is used in the dentist s room. The question really is whether it can be regarded as furniture at all, and, in our view, it cannot be so regarded, for the reasons which we have already given above. In the result, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. The department to pay to the assessee the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
