|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 102 Records
-
1971 (3) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or cause of action is barred. But it is also we recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action, or raises a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation." In the case before us, this principle, instead of helping the appellant, goes against him. In this case, the pleas of fraud and ante-. dating in respect of, the gift deed Ext. P-3 raise entirely new causes of action and a case quite different from that pleaded in the original written statement. It is not a case of a different oradditional approach to facts already given in the written statement. These cases do not, therefore, help the appellant and would not justify our permitting amendment of the written statement at this late stage by varying the order of the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs in this Court.
-
1971 (3) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act rejected the contention of the appellant. This Court held that the head constable was prosecuted and convicted for offences not under the Act but under the Indian Penal Code. To such prosecution, it was held that s. 42 did not apply. On the other hand, it was held that s. 42 of the Act applies to a prosecution against a person for an offence under s. 29 of the Act. The conclusion arrived at by us that the prosecution in the case on hand is barred by s. 42 of the Act is also supported by the decision quoted above. To conclude, it is clear that the prosecution against the appellant has been commenced beyond the period of three months and as such it is barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Act. Hence the orders of the High Court and the two subordinate courts are set aside. in consequence, the conviction of the appellant as well as the levy of fine are also set aside. The appeal is allowed and fine, if collected, shall be refunded. to the appellant. Appeal allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng about him for the present. It seems to us that on the facts of this case a heavy sentence is called for. Not only did the first respondent commit gross contempt of this Court but he took advantage of the retirement of Mr. Justice Shah and hurled fresh abuses on him in Court. It is true that he has offered an apology, but an apology coupled with fresh abuses can hardly be taken note of. However, we have decided to be lenient and impose only a sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. We have decided to be lenient because such gross contempts of this Court are happily rare, but any future gross contempt of this Court ,of this nature will be dealt with not so leniently. In the result it is held that 0. P. Gupta, respondent No. 1, is guilty of contempt of this Court and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months. We direct that he be arrested and committed to civil prison for two months. We further authorize the Registrar to take all necessary steps in this behalf.
-
1971 (3) TMI 111 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh 1967 19 S.T.C. 469 (S.C.)., that the State of Gujarat (sic) had made a separate entry with regard to firewood, namely, entry 8 in Part III of Schedule II of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, in order to provide two per cent. tax on it as in the case of entry 1 of Part III of Schedule II relating to declared goods, namely, coal including coke in all its forms in entry 1 of Part VI. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that cinders were not considered to be goods of special importance so as to be called declared goods and that it could not therefore come within entry 1 of Schedule II of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, we find that cinders do not fall under entry 1 of Schedule II of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The writ appeals and the tax cases are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100 in each case. Writ appeals and tax cases dismissed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essary for me to consider the merits arising in this writ petition. In fact, Mr. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is not clear as to why the sum of Rs. 37,951.47 which represented the excess balance for the period between 6th February, 1961, to 31st March, 1961, was multiplied by the figure 6 to arrive at the so-called escaped turnover. Even here, there is an element of arbitrariness since even the processing of assessment under section 16 must be tempered by prudence and the ultimate result should be justified by material. Even in this respect, the impugned order suffers from an error apparent. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, though there is an alternative remedy available for the petitioner, as the order impugned was passed without jurisdiction and as it has not satisfied any of the prerequisites laid down under section 16 of the Act, the rule nisi is made absolute and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 109 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reof, is not entitled to seize the movable properties of the other firm, of which also he is a partner, which firm, however, is not liable for the sales tax in question. It cannot be disputed in the instant case that the arrears of tax demanded are not payable by the petitioner, as such. It is only a demand for payment of tax concerning the quondam firm. Therefore, it follows that, that part of the order of the assessing authority that a notice of demand shall issue to the petitioner-firm for recovery of the tax due by the quondam firm, is erroneous and, therefore, the rule nisi is made absolute, and the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The revenue is at liberty to proceed and recover the arrears of tax payable by the quondam firm by proceeding against the assets of the erstwhile firm or against its partners individually, in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and under the common law. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 108 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he retrospective levy with effect from 30th November, 1957, is invalid. The notification was issued on 1st August, 1958. In the assessment year 1958-59 tax on dressed hides and skins will be assessed on the petitioner in accordance with the notification with effect from 1st August, 1958. For the earlier period tax may be assessed on him in accordance with the other provisions of the Act. As regards the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 tax will be assessed on him in accordance with the notification, for the notification was in force during these years. It was deleted on 15th November, 1961. In the result, we allow this petition partly. It is dismissed in regard to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The assessment order for the assessment year 1958-59 is quashed. The Sales Tax Officer is directed to assess the petitioner on his turnover for the assessment year 1958-59 as already indicated in the judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the quondam partnership firm. I am therefore of the view that the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority went wrong in bringing to tax the sum of Rs. 97,790 as if such a turnover represents the money consideration for the alleged transfer of property in goods from one set of partners to the other who should be deemed to have effected a sale thereof while dividing and accounting amongst themselves the assets of the partnership. The transaction in question not involving a sale and not being one for money consideration, has been wrongly included in the net of taxation. For a greater reason it follows that the penalty imposed on the petitioner which is on the assumption that the transaction involved a sale is again erroneous. The impugned order in so far as it relates to the turnover of Rs. 97,790 is quashed and as we are not concerned with the rest of the order it will stand. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 106 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commercial Taxes and Others v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver and Others(2), though the Supreme Court did not agree with the interpretation of the High Court on sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 41 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. 14.. Since the said search and seizure are illegal, the proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the illegal search must also be quashed. 15.. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed with costs. We issue a direction to the second respondent to return to the petitioners all accounts and documents seized by him on 10th December, 1969, and 27th December, 1969, along with the copies and notes, if any, made therefrom. We further issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings which culminated in the issue of the show cause notices against the petitioners dated 2nd February, 1970, and 20th March, 1970 (annexure B to both the petitions). Advocate s fee Rs. 100 one set. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 105 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... preme Court has held that shop rent paid by an excise contractor is not excise revenue. That decision follows an earlier decision of the same court in Shinde Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, and OthersA.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1512. Therefore, it is clear that the shop rental is not excise duty liable to be deducted under rule 6(4)(j) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules while determining the total taxable turnover. In that view, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 104 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he material used in preparing the photograph is sold and taxable. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that he has paid full tax on the value of such material and the respondents have neither denied the fact nor have claimed tax on such material. We, therefore, express no opinion on that question and need not consider either Masanda s case(1), where the only question referred to this court was whether such material alone could be taxed, or the observations of the Bombay High Court in Camera House case(2), about severability of the contract into one separately for service and supply of material. 11.. The result, therefore, is that we allow this petition and quash the assessment orders (annexures G, H, I and J) to the extent to which they assess sales tax on the estimated turnover relating to photographs taken by the petitioner. Parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs. The security for costs deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iction under article 226 of the Constitution. As in the main, the petitioner succeeds in his contention, that the major portion of the dealings which are referred to in the orders impugned cannot be included in the assessable turnover, as in fact lump sums are received by the petitioner as consideration for the execution of the contract of labour, this has to be separated and on such separation they have to be excluded from the taxable turnover. As regards the other part of the turnover the matter has to be still investigated by the assessing authority, whether they relate to supply of stone from the mine or not. In this light, the rule nisi is made absolute subject however to this direction that the matters will be remitted back to the assessing authority for a rescrutiny of the subject-matter and the assessable turnover determined in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment. The writ petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ernative should be given so as to subserve justice. In this view of the matter, whilst dismissing these writ petitions even as against the first respondent, the following directions are given to enable the first respondent to complete the assessment as early as possible and so as to also enable the petitioner to secure all the information which he desires to obtain from the second respondent. The first respondent is directed to take summons to the postmaster concerned to furnish him with information regarding the articles sent by the petitioners and sent back to the petitioners in the course of their business, the list of which would be furnished by the petitioners themselves. Costs incurred in such service of summons for obtaining such information shall be borne by the petitioners. With these directions no further orders are necessary. The petitioner in each of these cases is directed to furnish a list as above within six weeks from this date. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1971 (3) TMI 101 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r cent., the assessee would be left without any means to collect the deficit tax from the customers. These are circumstances which the authority exercising powers under section 18 has to take into consideration before levying penalty. What is the amount of penalty that should be levied would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Without considering the circumstances under which the collection was made, the assessing authority could not have straightaway levied penalty under section 18-A equal to the excess amount collected by it. Since the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on the second ground urged by the learned counsel, it is unnecessary for the purpose of these two cases to pronounce on the correctness of the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That question is left open. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders so far as they levy penalty are hereby quashed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n dispute that the cotton imported under the actual user s licence cannot be sold. That is apparently the reason why the Textile Commissioner gave permission to the assessee to take cotton on loan. The transaction now sought to be taxed consisted of the return of cotton to Valliappa Textiles. The transaction clearly does not amount to a sale and is not a sale. The Tribunal was right in finding that it was only a loan transaction. It may be, as contended by the department, money was paid by the assessee to Valliappa Textiles, Bangalore, in relation to the cotton borrowed. But this is for the purpose of clearing the security to which the cotton was subject in a bank. Without clearing the security, cotton could not be released and Valliappa Textiles, Bangalore, could not lend it. Such payment should not be taken as consideration for a sale. The tax case is dismissed. No costs. T.C. No. 402 of 1970-In the same view, this tax case is also dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 99 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ngode 1971 27 S.T.C. 439.) laid down the law that the imposition of penalty under section 16(2) by the revenue without giving a finding as specified under section 16(2) is not proper. Yet again in the peculiar circumstances of this case where two officers of the revenue would not agree as to the quantum of the escaped turnover it was all the more necessary for the assessing authority to state clearly that the undisclosed stock which he normally presumed should have been channelised by sales was wilfully not disclosed by the assessee and that such wilful non-disclosure attracted his jurisdiction under section 16(2) to levy the penalty. In the absence of such a specific finding and in view of the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this court, the order in so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned is quashed and the rest of the order will survive and is sustained. The writ petition is allowed in part and there will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 98 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iling a return, nor does it empower them to impose a penalty for non-payment of a tax or a penalty. It is well settled that a taxing statute must be strictly construed and in so far as a penalty contemplated by section 9(2) of the Central Act is concerned, I am of the opinion that it must be held to be a tax. In order to enable the sales tax authorities of the State of West Bengal to impose a tax for either of the purposes mentioned above, there must be clear and unambiguous provisions in the Central Act itself, and in the absence of such provisions in the Central Act, it cannot be said that the reference to the procedure for realisation of tax and penalty in section 9(2) of the Central Act enables the State sales tax authorities to impose a penalty either for delay in filing a return or for non-payment of a tax or penalty imposed upon an assessee. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that this appeal must succeed and I agree with the order made by my Lord. Appeal allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 97 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... words such as no order shall be passed after the expiry of two years . Therefore, the direction that the Commissioner may, within two years, rectify the mistake is a directory provision. When a party makes an application it is the duty of the Commissioner to decide it, provided it was made within the statutory period. If the time of two years was allowed by the Commissioner to run out, he is not relieved of his duty to decide it. This was also the view taken in N.V.S. Kadirvel v. State of Madras 1962 46 I.T.R. 251 (Mad.). and Vithaldas v. Incometax Officer, Kanpur 1969 71 I.T.R. 204 (All.). 7.. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th October, 1969, passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is quashed. The case shall go back to the Commissioner for deciding the petitioner s application under section 45 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The outstanding security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed person, wants a further opportunity to scrutinise the material which is going to be used against him and thereafter submit his objections to the proposal, then such a request ought not to be lightly brushed aside. In this case it has been done. The petitioner s request for ten days time from 31st August, 1967, was negatived. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. The opportunity given to the assessee, in my view, is not adequate. The petitioner should be given a fresh opportunity. The rule nisi is therefore made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. In view of the long lapse of the proceedings, the assessing authority would finally give fifteen days time to the petitioner and thereafter proceed with the assessment. But he shall see that the petitioner is given a real opportunity to look into the slips and diaries and other incriminating material on which he proposes to assess. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (3) TMI 95 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en once proceedings were properly initiated and were pending. It cannot be disputed in this case that by an order of remit the proceedings have been resurrected. Nevertheless, the assessment proceedings have not ceased to be pending. If, therefore, there is this continuity in the process of assessment and there has not been a completion of the assessment process in a manner known to law, then, it obviously follows that the assessment proceedings are on and are still pending and that if they are still pending they are pending as assessments under section 12, and there cannot be any metamorphosis of such proceedings from the one under section 12 to that under section 16. In this view of the matter, the writ of prohibition asked for is misconceived. But, as an interesting question has been raised, I am not inclined to give costs. The rule in each of these writ petitions is discharged, and the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
|
