|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 80 Records
-
1968 (2) TMI 111 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... same conclusion with regard to pigment emulsions to which Reference No. 32 relates. In the result, we answer the questions raised in Reference No. 31 as follows Question No. (1) In the affirmative. Question No. (2) In the negative. As far as Reference No. 32 is concerned, we also answer question No. (1) in the affirmative, and question No. (2) in the negative. In our opinion, the questions posed in both the references have been framed in the wrong order, as it is only if an item is held not to fall within a particular entry that the question of its falling within the general residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E arises. We have, however, answered them in the order in which they have been referred to us. The respondents, having succeeded in both the references, are entitled to their costs. In view, however, of the fact that the two references have been heard together, we fix one set of costs in respect of both of them at the figure of Rs. 250. References answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal, it is stated that a sample of the oil was shown to it, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the oil in question was scented with perfume, but we are afraid, the Tribunal cannot proceed to decide the case on its own opinion about the product as produced before it. The position, therefore, is that it must be held that the Ramtirth Brahmi Oil does not possess any ingredients which have been added, only on account of their quality of perfume. If some of them have, in addition to their medicinal properties, the quality of some sort of perfume, it cannot lead to the result that, by incorporating those ingredients, the applicants have perfumed the oil. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative. The respondent must pay the applicants costs fixed at Rs. 250 as one set of costs in all the three references. We direct that the deposit of Rs. 100 made by the applicants in each of the references be refunded to them. References answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 109 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... isdiction, on the basis of the agreement at annexure A to levy any sales tax upon the petitioner on account of execution of the disputed contract. The liability to pay sales tax is a question of law and cannot rest on any statement of the petitioner which in the instant case cannot but be due to a mistake about his legal position. At any rate, respondent No. 1 has not discharged his onus. In the result both the impugned orders at annexures H and I must be quashed and respondent No. 1 must be directed to make a fresh order of assessment after coming to a definite finding on the three points (a) to (c) which have been formulated in the previous paragraph of this judgment. The rule is made absolute in the above modified form but since respondent No. 1 has not only failed to discharge his onus under the law but even to carry out the directions given by his own departmental superior, he must bear the costs of this petition, which is assessed at five gold mohurs. Petition allowed.
-
1968 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , wireless reception instruments, apparatus and radio gramophones, with which the said entry starts. In that view of the matter, the term apparatus cannot be held to include loud-speakers, and no question of loud-speaker cabinets being spare parts of such apparatus survives. The contention of the department that loud-speaker cabinets fall within the said entry No. 65 must, therefore, also stand rejected, and, in our opinion, the same would fall within the general residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. We accordingly answer the question referred to us by stating that radio cabinets and loud-speaker cabinets are covered by the residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E, and do not fall within the scope of entry No. 65 of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood at the material time. In view of the conclusion at which we have arrived, the applicants must pay the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 107 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ls. There seems to have been some confusion in interpreting an entry similar to entry in item 3(d) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The question was answered in favour of the applicants that by merely reverting, the form is not changed. Even if the article like steel bar is subjected to this process of bending or of drilling of holes, that would not by itself take the article out of entry 3(c). The contention is well-founded and must be accepted. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the articles produced by, the respondents are well within entry 3(c) of Part 1 of Schedule B and, therefore, will be governed by section 2(26)(iii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. In the result, we answer both the questions, viz., questions Nos. (1) and (3) in the affirmative. Thus, the reference is decided in favour of the assessees. The Commissioner must pay the costs of the respondents. We fix the costs of this reference at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 106 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In other words, the true test is whether the sale occasions the export, and whether the sale and the resultant export form parts of a single and integrated transaction. As we have already stated, the present case comes within the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd., Alleppey 1952 3 S.T.C. 434.It follows, therefore, that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from sales tax to the extent of Rs. 50,015.55 nP. claimed by it, being the value of the goods exported by it to Nepal parties. Acting, therefore, in exercise of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution, we set aside the order of assessment of the Superintendent of Sales Tax dated the 22nd February, 1960, and remand the case to him for making a fresh assessment of sales tax in accordance with law and in accordance with the directions given in this judgment. We accordingly allow this application, but there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1968 (2) TMI 105 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to. The respondent, therefore, was not right in assessing the petitioner to the said amount which he had collected from his purchasers. It is open to the purchasers to file a suit and recover that amount from the petitioner, but the petitioner cannot be directed by virtue of section 5(c) to pay that amount to the Government. The only question is as to what kind of writ can be issued in this case. Mandamus is out of place here because there is no statutory duty. The order of assessment in so far as that amount is concerned because of section 5(c) being ultra vires is bad in law. That portion of the order, therefore, can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed and a writ of certiorari issued quashing the portion of the assessment order which relates to the recovery of the amount from the petitioner which he had collected illegally from his purchasers. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1968 (2) TMI 104 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s justified in holding that the transactions between the respondent and her customers were not sales of chattels qua chattels and were, therefore, not covered by section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Question No. (2)-The Tribunal was also justified in holding that the respondent was not a dealer as defined in section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We, however, desire to make it clear that we are not deciding in this reference that contracts relating to the disposal of charmed tawiz or amulets are not contracts of sale, or that persons making such charmed tawiz or amulets are not dealers, but are answering the questions posed on this reference only on the basis of the admission of fact which has been made on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, to which we have already referred above. The Commissioner of Sales Tax having failed in the reference must pay costs fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 967 in which it had asked for stay of the operation of that judgment. In disposing that petition this Court stated On this stay petition, we feel some difficulty. We declared parts of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act to be void and unconstitutional. That being the case, we do not see how we can suspend the operation of our judgment. The effect of the judgment is not like any other decree or order which is normally executable. Where the law itself is declared to be unconstitutional, we do not think it appropriate that by grant of stay the position resulting from the judgment can in any way be affected. On that view, we decline to grant stay. This order was made on 29th April, 1967. We are of the same opinion even now. It follows, therefore, that Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer(1) has to be given effect to and be followed by the revenue in the State with respect to assessees or parties other than those in the appeal pending in the Supreme Court.
-
1968 (2) TMI 102 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of processing goods. It is not necessary, as far as we can see, that in the processing of an article within the meaning of this section, there must be use of mechanical force in particular cases. Even the use of manual force or use of the hand may lead to the same result. Therefore, we must answer the question by saying that the making of panpattis can be said to be in law a process for the purpose of section 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, though it is not a manufacture of goods. We must, however, make it clear that the answer to this question does not dispose of the matter and the case has to go back to the Tribunal to decide the crucial question as to whether the finding of the Sales Tax Authorities as to the quantity of turnover of the respondent has been correctly arrived at. As the reference is answered against the respondent, the respondent will be liable for the applicant s costs. Applicant s costs quantified at Rs. 150. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 101 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ese articles is that they are vehicles. It could hardly be said that the machine with which we are concerned, namely, crawler-mounted gasolineoperated crane, is a motor vehicle. Essentially, it is a crane. It is operated by use of gasoline, and such a crane is mounted on a crawler. That the crawler is propelled by a motor is undoubtedly the feature of the machine, but that by itself would not make it a motor vehicle in the sense in which the entry has to be understood, having regard to the import of the words, and other words which are used as included in the words motor vehicle as enumerated in entry No. 58 of Schedule C. We are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal is the correct view, and the only answer that can be given to the question referred to us is in the negative. The result is the reference is answered in favour of the assessee. The applicant shall pay the costs of the respondents fixed at Rs. 250 as costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red to be used need not be determinative of the question whether there is no separate agreement for purchase. Ordinarily, such contracts, where materials to be used are ancillary to the execution of the contracts, do not import agreements to sell materials, as such. If that is so, it cannot be said that the tailoring bill involves the sale of materials as well as the charges for stitching. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the question which is referred to us must be answered in the negative. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in law in coming to the conclusion that, while stitching the customers cloth according to their orders, the applicants sold the materials such as lining cloth, hair canvas, buttons or thread or any other ancillary material, to the customers. The respondents will pay the costs of the assessee fixed at Rs. 250, the amount of Rs. 100 deposited by the applicants to be refunded to them. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1968 (2) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ne, etc. If toothpaste is toiletry, we have no doubt that tooth-powder is equally so. The test to be applied, in our opinion, would be whether an article or thing is used or is capable of being used for cleaning or grooming one s person. Which part of the anatomy is selected for cleaning or grooming is not relevant for consideration because it is the article used for a cleaning process which is intended to be included in the form or process of toileting. We have, therefore, no difficulty in holding that tooth-powder sold by the respondents is included in entry No. 39 of Schedule B as a toilet article. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the Vicco Vajradanti sold by the respondents is not a toilet article. The result is that the reference is answered in favour of the applicant. The respondents shall pay costs of the applicant. Costs fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 98 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld apply also to forced sales by the Collector was entirely contrary to the scheme of the Act, and to the said section, It is, therefore, quite clear that, both on principle as well as on authority, section 26 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, must be held to be applicable only to cases of voluntary transfers inter vivos. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1) The Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the respondent could not be held liable to pay tax as a legal heir in respect of the business conducted by his father. Question No. (2) The Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent could not be held to be a transferee within the meaning of section 26(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and was not liable to pay tax in respect of the business conducted by his father. The Commissioner having failed in the reference, must pay the respondent s costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 97 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 9(2) as it stood at the material time, the chargeability or liability to tax, as well as the assessment, are both yearly, and, under the circumstances, there is no difference at all between the material provisions of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. In the result, we must reject the contentions of Mr. Banaji, both as a matter of construction as well as on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mathra Parshad s case , by which we are bound. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Nos. (1) and (3) in the affirmative. Mr. Banaji has not pressed questions Nos. (2), (4) and (5) on which no argument has been addressed to us. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to answer the same. The applicant having failed in the reference, must pay the respondents costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (2) TMI 96 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t affect the jurisdiction of this Court, though normally, the Courts would be reluctant to interfere in the writ jurisdiction when alternate remedies are available. Having regard, however, to the circumstances of this case, namely, (a) the petitioner has already paid the tax due on these transactions in Uttar Pradesh and without a firm finding, it would be unjust to burden the petitioner with the levy a second time and (b) the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner to tax without giving a finding as to the place where sale was effected, on proper application of law, I am not inclined to dismiss this petition on the ground of the existence of alternate remedy. In these circumstances, these petitions are allowed and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, quashed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It will, however, be open to the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, to make fresh order if that course be permissible in law. Petitions allowed.
-
1968 (2) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT
Imposition of penalty under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 challenged - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Where there is a speaking order, a second writ petition in this Court does not lie even though no notice in the petition had been issued before the High Court decided the matter.
-
1968 (2) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the case of the appellant was true, namely, that it discovered the mistake only in January, 1967, and that the assessments were illegal were all matters which the High Court had to examine after affidavits had been filed/
Held that:- Appeal allowed against the orders rejecting the writ petitions and direct the High Court to admit the writ petitions and hear the matters out in the normal way. Since we have granted special leave against the orders rejecting the writ petitions, it is not necessary to consider whether the High Court erred in refusing to certify the appeals under Article 133. There will therefore be no orders on the appeals against the orders refusing to certify the appeals. The costs of these appeals will abide by the decision of the High Court in the writ petitions
-
1968 (2) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT
Escapment of turnover - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The proceedings commenced after the returns were submitted by the assessee. No final order of assessment has yet been made in regard to the said returns and, therefore, it cannot be said that any turnover of the assessee has escaped assessment within rule 34(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1948.
-
1968 (2) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... the contesting respondent. In the above view, we would hold that the city civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit and the learned trial judge was not justified in holding otherwise and in directing return of the plaint. In the result, this appeal will succeed, the order of the learned trial judge, holding that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit and directing return of the plaint to the filing lawyer for presentation to the proper court, will be set aside and the case will be sent back to him for fresh decision on the merits mdash subject, of course, to the observations made hereinbefore, mdash in accordance with law and on the evidence which is already on record, the question of additional evidence, if any, being left to the learned trial judge to be decided in accordance with the relevant provisions of law in that behalf. Let the further hearing of the suit be expedited as much as possible. There will be no order for costs in this court.
|
