|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 82 Records
-
1974 (4) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 63 years, want to start a new business as a dealer in iron and steel materials a business in which he had no experience at all. These circumstances, borne out by the evidence on record and held established by the Additional District Judge, clearly supported the finding of fact reached by the Additional District Judge that the respondent did not bona fide require the Lohia Bazar shop for starting business as a dealer in iron and steel mate- rials. Nor could this finding of fact-be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or perverse so as to merit interference by the High Court in second appeal. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the High Court in reversing the decision of the Additional District Judge and passing a decree for eviction against the appellant. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree for eviction passed by the High Court against the appellant and dismissed the suit of the respondent. There will be no order as to costs all throughout. Appeal allowed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r trained in the art and skill of law and not by an executive officer. It is difficult to see bow, in the context of the need for speedy and expeditious recovery of public premises for utilisation for important public uses, where dilatoriness of the procedure may defeat the very object of recovery, the special procedure set out in Chapter VA of the Municipal Act-and this applies equally to the special procedure set out in the Government Premises Eviction Act- can be regarded as really and substantially more drastic and prejudicial than the ordinary procedure of a civil suit. We do not think that the two procedures are so substantially and qualitatively disparate as to attract the vice of discrimination. The result is that all the appeals and writ petitions fail and are dismissed. The petitioners in the writ petitions will pay one set of costs. So far as the appeals are concerned, they will be posted for final disposal before a Division Bench. Appeals and petitions dismissed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT
abuses of import quota requires proper scrutiny of the various applications for import licence'
no merit in the objection that the writ petition on behalf of the "firm" is not maintainable.
-
1974 (4) TMI 98 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is undisputed that aluminium was dutiable and that duty had not been paid. Therefore it was the obligation of the manufacturer who had removed the dutiable goods to have paid the duty and not having paid the duty, rule 9 (2) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the manner which has been invoked. 3. So far as the contention that no opportunity had been given, it is also undisputed that the figure of the total aluminium which had been manufactured, had been arrived at from the books of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no prejudice on this count either. 4. In the aforesaid view or the matter, it cannot also be accepted that the Inspector was not competent to make the demand. 5. In the premises, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed. The rule nisi is discharged. Interim order is vacated. There will be no order as to costs. There will be an order of stay of operation of this order for a period of six weeks from this date.
-
1974 (4) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n a quasi-judicial function and it ought to have applied its mind to all the relevant and material controversies raised before it before deciding the appeal. The ground for dismissing the appeal, as observed, above, amounts to merely a general opinion and not to an examination and consideration on merit the case of the petitioner appellant. We think that the learned Single Judge was in error in not quashing the appellate order, the petitioner having made out a case for its quashing. 4. The result is that this appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside the impugned appellate order dated 22nd December, 1966, Annexure ‘G’ to the petition, is quashed. A further direction is issued that the Appellate Authority will re-consider the appeal of the petitioner and decide it in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. The appellant shall be entitled to its costs both in the appeal as well as in the petition.
-
1974 (4) TMI 96 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e E) without payment of excise duty as the goods had been manufactured during the duty free period and as such, not liable for payment of excise duty at all. 11. Consequently, we would quash the order of the Inspector, Central Excise dated 20-3-1972 (Petitioner’s Annexure G) demanding payment of excise duty from the petitioner and by a writ of Mandamus, we would restrain the respondents from recovering the excise duty from the petitioner on the goods declared by the petitioner vide communication dated 17-3-1972 (Petitioner’s Annexure E) and by a further writ of Mandamus we direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to remove the said goods without payment of excise duty. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs of this writ petition, including the counsel’s fee at ₹ 200/-. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1974 (4) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court correct to allow the amendment with a laconic order "Application for amendment allowed".?
Held that:- The appeal filed by defendants 2 and 3 being directed against a mere finding given by the trial court was not maintainable; defendants 2 and 3 were not denied by the preliminary decree the right to pay the decretal amount; and the two defendants could even have applied under Order 21, Rule 89, for setting aside the sale in favour of the appellant but they failed to do so as, presumably, they were not interested in paying the amount. The High Court was therefore wholly in error in allowing the amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal, particularly when defendants 2 and 3 had neither explained the long delay nor sought its condonation - we allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court.
-
1974 (4) TMI 94 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which they could operate and we would be virtually striking off the words powdered bones from these entries. This is not harmonious construction, for it reduces one of the competing entries to a dead letter. The only manner in which the competing entries can be harmonised is by restricting the entry of fertilizer in Schedule I by excluding from its ambit powdered bones . Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner must also fail. 15.. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sagar Bone Mills, Sagar No. 1 1966 18 S.T.C. 338., the Division Bench, by applying the rule of harmonious construction, held that bone-meal will be excluded from entry No. 22 in Schedule I and will be included in entry No. 9 of Schedule II and entry No. 2 of Schedule III. We agree with this conclusion. 16.. The petition fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 93 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ints required consideration it would not be safe to affirm the determination of the turnover. On this finding the assessment order was set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh assessment. In our opinion, the remand order was occasioned upon the pleas raised by the assessee in appeal. It may be noticed that the assessee did not appear before the Sales Tax Officer in spite of service of notice. The appellate authority thought it fit in the interest of justice to afford another opportunity to the assessee to establish his point and meeting the information in the possession of the Sales Tax Officer. In the circumstances, the exercise of power of remand was, in our opinion, sound and in accordance with the exercise of judicial discretion. In the result, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (4) TMI 92 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on certificates under section 5(2)(a)(ii) free from payment of sales tax contravene the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) when they resell the goods so purchased tax-free outside Delhi either directly or use them as raw materials in the manufacture of goods and sell the manufactured goods outside Delhi. For, such resales and sales outside Delhi would not be made by these registered dealers in their capacity as registered dealers. In selling the goods outside Delhi, they will not be acting as dealers registered under the Act. As they have done so, the purchase price of the goods has been rightly included in their taxable turnover by the sales tax authorities. The decision of the Financial Commissioner in M/s. Fitwell Engineers case was therefore right. The Writ Petitions (Nos. 590 of 1973, 1549 of 1973, 894 of 1973, 147 of 1974, 111 of 1974, 947 of 1973 and 1426 of 1973) are, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 91 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ition or the investments made in its business. It is true that in the instant case the Sales Tax Officer made certain adverse remarks in respect of accounts for the year 1965-66, but a reading of the assessment order clearly indicates that on the whole he was satisfied that they were reliable and correct. The revisional order does not show that while remanding these cases, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has taken a different view about the assessee s books. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case the Judge (Revisions) was not justified In setting aside the assessment orders and in remanding these cases to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to receive costs of this reference from the Commissioner of Sales Tax which we assess at Rs. 100 in each of these two references. References answered in the negative.
-
1974 (4) TMI 90 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the tax for the quarters beyond three years from the date of issue of notice. As the assessment is a composite assessment covering quarters within and beyond three years from the issue of notice without showing separately assessment of tax for each quarter, the entire assessment has to be quashed leaving it to the respondents to make the assessment separately for the quarters not barred under section 11(5). This was the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas s case(2). 22.. There are some other points which the petitioner has raised in his petition for challenging the assessment, but as they have been given up before us, we need not say anything on those points. 23.. The petition is allowed. The assessment order is quashed. The respondents will be at liberty to assess the tax separately for the quarters not barred under section 11(5). There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 89 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... istered post acknowledgment due which were received back on 3rd January, 1973, and 27th April, 1973. The assessment order for April, 1973, was also sent under a registered cover acknowledgment due and the acknowledgment has since been received back. So far as assessment orders for the months of January and February, 1973, were concerned, they were received by the munim of the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder affidavit. In the circumstances, for the purposes of this petition, we accept the case of the respondents that the assessment orders were made after intimation to the petitioner and that they had been served upon him. The recovery proceedings, therefore, cannot be interfered with on this ground either. However, this factual controversy can best be adjudicated in the appeal filed by the petitioner which is pending consideration before respondent No. 2. In the result, we find no force in this petition which is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 88 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Thirumagal Mills Ltd. and Another 1972 29 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.) A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1148., and in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Brothers 1964 15 S.T.C. 644 (S.C.) A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 531., wherein it was held The expression business , though extensively used, is a word of indefinite import. In taxing statutes it is used in the sense of an occupation or profession which occupies the time, attention and labour of a person, normally with the object of making profit. To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit-motive, and not for sport or pleasure. It is, therefore, not necessary to elaborate on this matter. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the first question also in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. However, there will be no order as to costs. P.S. PATTAR, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1974 (4) TMI 87 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to as the Act), to tax him. Item 63 of Schedule B of the Act reads as follows Bakery goods prepared When sold, otherwise than in conwithout using power at tainers and packets by bakers any stage. dealing exclusively in such goods. As regards eggs, item 18 in the same schedule, reproduced below, may be noticed Meat, fish and eggs. Except when sold in tins, bottles or cartons. Both items Nos. 18 and 63 are exempt from sales tax. The mere fact that a dealer sells two exempted goods will not make the dealer selling goods under item No. 63 liable to sales tax merely because he is selling another tax-free goods, namely, eggs. If the interpretation sought to be placed is accepted, it would nullify both the exemptions and this result cannot be envisaged. In this view of the matter, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (4) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cated that for part of the assessment years in question the assessee had concealed its purchases and sales over Rs. 10,60,000 and Rs. 18,00,000. Acting upon this basis the Sales Tax Officer estimated the petitioner s taxable turnovers for the entire year at Rs. 35,00,000 and Rs. 41,00,000 respectively. In the circumstances, we do not think that the basis adopted for estimating the turnover had no reasonable nexus with the estimate made by the Sales Tax Officer. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to indicate that the basis adopted was not rational or that the Sales Tax Officer was actuated by any bias, caprice or vindictiveness. In the circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the turnover estimated for each of the two years by the Sales Tax Officer. In our opinion, the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer are not vitiated for any of the reasons urged on behalf of the petitioner. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (4) TMI 85 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her State. The contract of sale must itself provide as an integral part of it that the goods shall be transported from one State to another. In this case, the assessee has not led any evidence about the precise nature of the contract that had been entered into between it and the purchasers. In the absence of evidence with regard to such a contract and in view of the fact that delivery of goods in question was effected at Firozabad, it cannot be said that any movement of the goods from one State to another was occasioned by the transaction of sale effected by the assessee. In our opinion, the sales tax authorities were justified in treating the sales in question as intra-State sales and in taxing the turnover thereof as such. The question referred to us is accordingly answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Sales Tax will be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100. There will be only one set of costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1974 (4) TMI 84 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case inasmuch as, as I have already observed, the revisional authority has unfettered powers under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the Act and, as such, the Board of Revenue while exercising the revisional powers was quite competent to enhance the tax of the assessee by disallowing the claim of deductions for sales to the three registered dealers during the year 1957-58 and for sales to one of the registered dealers, namely, Kailash Stores, during the year 1958-59. That being the position, the entire order of assessment dated 30th July, 1962, passed by the assessing authority merged in the revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue on 11th January, 1964. 8.. For the aforesaid reasons, I answer the question framed in the affirmative. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this reference. S.K. JHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (4) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not so much concerned with the propriety of the order made in exercise of its power under section 10(3) of the Act by the additional revising authority as with the maintainability of the revision application arising out of orders made during the proceedings for provisional assessment after regular assessment order has been made. As stated earlier, making of the final assessment order does not deprive the additional revising authority of its jurisdiction under section 10(3) to deal with the revision arising out of proceedings for provisional assessment. It is a different matter that considering the circumstances of a particular case, the revising authority may choose not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction merely for academic purposes. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to receive costs of this reference which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (4) TMI 82 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vided thereunder is that, in case of delayed submission of returns, penalty to the extent of one and a half times of the amount of sales tax can be levied in addition to the sales tax. The departmental authorities may have chosen to act under this provision and not under section 7(4)(c) of the Act. In this situation, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it cannot be said as to which of the two grounds principally affected the mind of the authority in cancelling the registration certificate assumes importance. It is for this reason that we are constrained to come to the conclusion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of cancellation of the registration certificate under section 7(4) of the Act is not sustainable in law. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the petitioner and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
|
