|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one party and denied by the other on whatever grounds. Mere failure or inaction to pay does not lead to the inference of the existence of dispute. Dispute entails a positive element and assertion in denying, not merely inaction to accede to a claim or a request. Whether in a particular case a dispute has arisen or not has to be found out from the facts and circumstances of the case. The application under section 20 of the Act was filed in Court in January, 1986, that is to say, within the period of three years; therefore the application was within time. The High Court was in error in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation. The judgment and order of the High Court are, therefore, set aside. The High Court is directed to make an order under section 20 of the Act and give consequential directions in respect of the same. The costs of this appeal would be costs in the arbitration proceeding. The appeal is thus allowed and disposed of as aforesaid. Appeal allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 445 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the situation, capacity and the dimensions of the brick kiln owned by the assessee, during the year in dispute. In view of the Tribunal's own findings recorded for the immediately preceding year and for the years prior to that, I am not inclined to sustain the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal on this count. In my opinion, the question about the determination of production of bricks must go back to the Sales Tax Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall examine this issue afresh taking into consideration its previous orders and such other material as the parties may file before it. 9. No other point was pressed before me. 10. In giving effect to this order under Section 11 (8) of the Act, the Tribunal shall restore the assessee's appeal to its original number and shall decide it afresh in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law. 11. This revision succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 444 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecting respondents 3 to 7 to pay a sum of ₹ 20,000 to the appellant on or before 31.5.1988. The order dated 9.5.1986 and the final decree dated 30.9.1986 made in I.A. No. 745 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Sankarankoil as confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 25 of 1987 and A.S. No. 158 of 1986 are affirmed. A further clause will be included in the decree directing payment of ₹ 20,000 by respondents 3 to 7 to the appellant as owelty. The affidavit of the appellant found in the sealed envelope given by his counsel Mr. Govindarajan, estimating the market price of the III Schedule property at ₹ 75,000 and the memo, signed by respondents. 3 to 7 found in the sealed cover given by their counsel containing their offer to purchase the 1/6th share of the appellant at ₹ 20,000 will be part of the records and they will be attached to this judgment. The appeals are ordered accordingly. Both parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 443 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tend that the benefits covered by G.O. Ms. No. 224 were not available by the time Act 20 of 1987 was passed. So far as the other contentions relating to promissory estoppel, the validity of Act 20 of 1987 and the alleged discrimination on account of grant of benefits to other companies or to backward areas under G.O. Ms. No. 375 dated August 23, 1985, are concerned we have already dealt with them elaborately in W.P. No. 1861 of 1982. The reasons given in that writ petition will equally apply to this writ petition also. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. For the aforesaid reasons all the three writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. This will not, however, preclude the petitioners claims to IFST loan up to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs as mentioned in Act 20 of 1987. The three writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 442 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dressed chicken could be considered as meat and consequently exempt under the aforementioned G.O. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the State has filed this tax revision case. We are afraid, dressed chicken cannot be regarded as meat. Meat, as is popularly known, and even according to the current dictionary meaning, is flesh of animals excluding fish or poultry. In the popular sense, dressed chicken is not called meat. The learned Government Pleader invites our attention to the decision of a Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Shri Nalini Ranjan Sirkar v. Superintendent of Taxes 1986 62 STC 21. The Full Bench has taken the same view in the above case. We are in respectful agreement with the said decision. We accordingly hold that the assessee in the present case is not entitled to claim exemption of the turnover of dressed chicken under the G.O. dated 10th June, 1957. The tax revision case is allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 441 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rtheless his separate properties are sought to be proceeded against in revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of the tax due from the firm as per the assessment order exhibit P8. It is also submitted that the appeal exhibit P6 was actually heard on 18th February, 1988, but no orders have been passed until this date. 3.. The partners of the firm are also liable for payment of the tax as is clear from section 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. But the legal representative of the deceased partner is liable only to the extent of his inheritance. His separate properties cannot be proceeded against for realisation of the tax due from the firm of which his father was a partner. Since the appeal exhibit P6 itself had been heard on 18th February, 1988, there will be a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the appeal within three weeks after the receipt of a copy of this judgment by him. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1988 (3) TMI 440 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch orders, much of the judicial time can be saved. In this view of the matter, I am obliged to allow these writ petitions on this limited ground only and it should not be understood that because of this decision, the appellate authorities are obliged to grant absolute stay in all cases. It is entirely left to their discretion to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned to take up the stay applications on file and pass speaking orders bearing in mind the above principles laid down by the courts, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such orders are passed on the stay applications in all these cases, the collection of tax and penalty shall stand stayed. There will be no order as to costs. Finally, I may add that the best way to safeguard the interests of public revenue is to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 439 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on scrap, white metal and lead scrap, brass lead scrap, etc. These bills of sale also evidence transfer of property between the petitioner and to the relative buyers for an agreed consideration. Such sales are consequently liable for assessment at the hands of the purchaser from the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the stage of liability is the first point of sale in the State of Madras. The rate of tax applicable is the maximum of 3 per cent. The details in this case clearly show that Viswanatha Rupa and Company obtained the goods by way of purchase from M.J. Durairaj under the supervision of the joint Commissioners appointed for the purpose. M/s. Viswanatha Rupa and Company in their turn sold the goods to several of their customers. Therefore, the impugned order is correct. There is no infirmity in it. There is no merit in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 438 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Union of India AIR 1981 SC 2138 and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal 1986 4 SCC 566, that the courts should not light-heartedly invalidate fiscal enactments on constitutional grounds. There are undoubted limitations in applying that doctrine universally. But in this case those considerations are inapplicable. Following those judgments of the Supreme Court, we agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of A.P. 1985 60 STC 14 (AP). In view of the fact that the Division Bench in the above case had noticed Kotha Rama Doss case 1985 60 STC 53 (AP) App. I and held it to be Per incuriam in substance, we do not see any need to refer this matter to a Full Bench. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. W.P. No. 13479 of 1984. In view of the judgment in W.P. No. 13360 of 1984 and for the same reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 437 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion of any sale in the series of sales, if any, because, as I have pointed out above, the card board container once used for containing explosives is, according to the mandate of the law, not to be transferred by sale or used again once the explosives are taken out of it. They have, as per statutory force, to be destroyed. 11.. Having considered the question in all their ramifications I am constrained to hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case sale by the assessee of the card board boxes was not subject to special sales tax under section 5 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act read with the notification dated 12th February, 1966, issued under the proviso to section 5 of the said Act. The question referred to us must be answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The references are allowed in favour of the assessee. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 1,000 only. S.H.S. ABIDI, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1988 (3) TMI 436 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1981 are allowed and the tax collected from the petitioner at the rate of 12 per cent under item 41-B will be refunded to the petitioner with respect to these petitions. So far as the other petitions are concerned, they are governed by item 41-B which came into existence under the provisions of the enactment on 13th September, 1977. 4.. As regards Writ Petition No. 5896 of 1981, it is submitted that tax has to be collected for the period from 1st April, 1977 to 13th September, 1977 only under item 81 and tax has to be collected under item 41-B for the subsequent assessment year 1977-78. Writ Petition No. 5896 of 1981 is remanded to the assessing authority in order to assess tax as stated above and to collect tax amount due and payable by the petitioner herein for the year 1977-78. There is no order as to costs, in all the petitions. Writ Petitions Nos. 5895 and 5897 of 1981 dismissed. Writ Petitions Nos. 5893 and 5894 of 1981 allowed. Writ Petition No. 5896 of 1981 remanded.
-
1988 (3) TMI 435 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , to say the least, unfair and was calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the impartial and fair administration of the sales tax department concerned. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the revised order of assessment was wholly vitiated. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, however, submits that the Tribunal, instead of quashing the revised order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, should have remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, for completion of the proceedings under section 20(2) of the Act. We see no substance in this submission as the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, under section 20(2) of the Act were still pending before him when the Tribunal passed the impugned order. In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 434 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ill be reconsidered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, will fix a date for hearing of the petitioner s application for renewal of eligibility certificate and notify the petitioner with regard to the date so fixed. Similarly, the Commercial Tax Officer will also fix a date for hearing of the petitioner s application for issue of declaration forms and such dates for hearing should be fixed within eight weeks from the date of service of a signed copy of this dictated order. The respective applications or any other pending application of the petitioner should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the dictated order on the respective respondents. All parties to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 433 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Ahmedabad, to the effect that plastic sheets manufactured by Messrs. Viral Laminates Private Limited, Ahmedabad, and supplied to the petitioner are covered under the Central Excise Tariff item No. 15-A(2) attracting Central excise duty at 30 per cent plus 5 per cent special duty on basic duty. We, therefore, see no reason why a different classification in relation to the goods purchased by the petitioner from the manufacturers, namely, Messrs. Viral Laminates Private Limited, Ahmedabad, should be made by the Revenue for the purpose of levying sales tax. We must also observe that the learned Government Pleader has not placed before us any information as to how other dealers in the same goods are being taxed. The impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal are accordingly set aside. It is needless to observe that the disputed turnover is liable to tax only at 6 per cent. The tax revision cases are accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... person who seeks entertainment by entering into the auditorium by paying the charge in the ticket, which includes the entertainment tax, the collection of the tax from the cinema theatre owner comes in. This view adopted in the argument on behalf of the petitioner can be sustained, since it is reasonable and is also in accordance with the provisions of section 4 as well as section 5-B of the Act. 7.. Therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. 8.. It is submitted that by virtue of the order made in W.M.P. No. 9400 of 1981, the petitioner has paid the tax. Since this Court has now held that no tax is liable to be paid by the petitioner herein by virtue of the general definition of section 4 of the Act, for the admission of the customers into the auditorium of a theatre, this Court directs refund of the said amount so paid to the petitioner within two months from this date. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 431 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ile upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. A copy of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal is placed before us. On a perusal of the same it is noticed that the Tribunal found that the value of the plastic material used for manufacturing VIP suitcases was not substantial. From the record placed before us we find that no material whatsoever was placed by the assessee before the Tribunal as to the quantity of plastic material used for manufacturing VIP suitcases and the value thereof as against the total value of all the materials used for manufacturing the same. No certificates from any of the scientific experts engaged or concerned with the trade were filed before the Tribunal, not to speak of oral examination of any one of them. In the circumstances we find it difficult to hold that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is in any way erroneous. The tax revision case is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 430 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case the tax leviable is at 6 per cent. If pigment powders do not fall under item 45 then there is no dispute that the goods have to be treated as unclassified and general rate of tax would be applicable. The Tribunal examined the question in all aspects and in a well-reasoned order pointed out that pigment powders sold by the assessee did not fall under item 45. Having carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any material to come to a contrary conclusion. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 429 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on for one basic reason. The contention was raised before the Tribunal in the grounds, but was not dealt with by the Tribunal, apparently for the reason that the counsel who argued the appeal before the Tribunal did not deal with the same. A ground although raised before an appellate authority, if it is not argued before the appellate authority it must be taken to have been given up. We also find that there is no complaint in the memorandum of revision that notwithstanding the ground being raised before the Tribunal, there is a failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the ground. This would only fortify the view that possibly the ground was not argued before the Tribunal at all. We cannot, therefore, permit the learned counsel to argue this ground at this stage. We reject the contention accordingly. 5.. In the result, the tax revision case fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 428 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... VI-B in the circumstances is unjustified and is quashed. Consequently, all subsequent actions on the basis of such notice in form No. VI-B are also quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs. K.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree with the conclusion. There are a large number of documents which were relied upon by Dr. Pal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate his contention that the transaction being in course of import was not subjected to assessment of sales tax in the State. These documents, consisting of material facts can be better examined by the Sales Tax Officer in the appropriate assessment proceeding which has in the meantime been initiated. As alternative remedy is available and the entire matter can be thrashed out about the nature of transaction, none of the observations in this judgment shall influence the Sales Tax Officer who, we believe, shall arrive at his own independent conclusion on the facts placed before him. Writ application allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 427 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s question in the instant case as it is not necessary because of the fact that the admitted position is that there was some mistake on the part of the driver of the lorry and in a penalty proceeding the onus of proof is upon the Revenue that he is liable for penalty, whereas the onus of proof in an assessment proceeding is just otherwise. In the instant case it could not be established beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of violation of the impugned rule. Accordingly, considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the case and for the ends of justice, I think a token and minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000 would be quite commensurate with the minor failure to comply with the statutory requirements. Respondent No. 4 is directed to refund the balance amount lying with him to the petitioners within a week from the date of communication of this order. Let a plain copy of the order be given to the petitioners on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed.
........
|
