|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 79 Records
-
1975 (4) TMI 122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the Government of Karnataka, Finance Department. To Sri Amarappa Arli, Ex-Oil Mill Owner, Gangavathi. Sir, Sub Waiver of penalty and grant of stay against recovery proceedings. Ref Your petition dated 17-5-1974 addressed to Finance Minister, Bangalore. I am directed to state that it is regretted that your request for waiver of penalty cannot be conceded, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is being requested to vacate the stay and intimate action for recovery of the dues. Yours faithfully, Sd/(T.M. Vasudevan) Under Secretary to Government, Finance Department. 6.. It is true that the Government have not given any reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner for waiving penalty. But, I see no obligation on the Government to give any such reason. Section 13(2A) does not contemplate an order adjudicating the civil rights of any party and, therefore, the order to be made thereunder need not be a speaking order. 7.. The petition is therefore rejected. Petition rejected.
-
1975 (4) TMI 121 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal that out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 2,506.66 is taxable at 6 frac12 per cent and the balance of Rs. 71,854.04 at 1 frac12 per cent. The petitioners will be entitled to reliefs on this basis. The second contention of the petitioners that the turnover of Rs. 13,308.32 relating to sale of scrap is not liable to sales tax is untenable. Apart from the fact that it is a by-product, it has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Co. Ltd.(1), that a turnover relating to incidental business also would be liable to tax in the hands of the revenue. In view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, clearly the turnover of Rs. 13,308.32 is liable to be included in the taxable turnover. No other point arises in this tax revision case. The tax revision is, therefore, allowed to the extent of the refunded amount disputed in this case and dismissed in so far as it related to the sales of scrap. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1975 (4) TMI 120 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... levant section and the explanation in the Central Act. 18.. From the discussion of the various authorities above, it is clear that the assessee will be entitled to exemption under section 8(2A) of the Central Act only when the goods are exempted generally and not under specified circumstances or under specified conditions. In the case on hand, it cannot be disputed that the exemption is not general, but is only for a limited purpose and under specified circumstances. The case comes, consequently, within the explanation to section 8(2A) of the Central Act. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under the Central Act. 19.. We therefore hold that the Tribunal was not correct in extending the exemption under section 8(2A) of the Central Act to the assessee in question. The T.R.C. is accordingly allowed. 20.. The opposite party was not before us. Sri T.L. Viswanatha Iyer assisted as amicus curiae at our request and we are thankful to him. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (4) TMI 119 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n rule 72 does not say that if it is not complied with the accounts will have to be rejected. In view of this decision, it is obvious that after finding that the account books maintained by the assessee had been kept in the ordinary course of business and the entries made therein were verifiable and that they were reliable, they could not be rejected merely because the assessee did not maintain the stock register contemplated by rule 72(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. In the result, the second question referred to us for opinion is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer given to the second question, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the first question, viz., whether the assessee was liable to maintain manufacturing account under rule 72(2). The first question is, therefore, left unanswered. The assessee will be entitled to receive the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1975 (4) TMI 118 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sioner had rested content with the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the relief granted was obviously to the prejudice of the appellant. 7.. Counsel Sri T.L. Viswanatha Iyer has very fairly brought to our notice the decision of the Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa v. Chunilal Parameswar Lal 1961 12 S.T.C. 677., which has taken a different view. The assessee s counsel therein conceded the position against the assessee. With great respect, we prefer to follow the decisions of the Bombay High Court. That view is also supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in Central Camera Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Government of Madras 1971 27 S.T.C. 112. 8.. In the result, we hold that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous in law, set it aside and remand the case to the Tribunal for hearing the appeal of the assessee afresh and in accordance with law and in the light of what we have said in this judgment. We make no order as to costs. Case remanded.
-
1975 (4) TMI 117 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 3(a) of the Act. Alternatively, it is contended by Sri D.V. Sastry, the learned counsel for the department, that the sales in question constitute sales in the course of inter-State trade inasmuch as the sales are effected by transfer of documents of title during their movement from one State to another and hence they fall within section 3(b) of the Act. But Sri Ramamohana Rao submits that this contention was not raised before the assessing authority or the Tribunal and that even otherwise it cannot be said that the railway receipt is a document of title, and therefore the provisions of section 3(b) are not attracted. But inasmuch as this question was not raised before any of the sales tax authorities or the Tribunal, we are not inclined to go into this question and express any opinion on the contentions urged by both the learned counsel on this point. In the result, all the revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1975 (4) TMI 116 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of such poles will be recovered from the contractor. The incorporation of such a provision entitling the Board to recover from the contractor the value of the poles damaged during the transportation shows beyond doubt that the whole basis of the arrangement was that the poles were to be manufactured by the contractor for and on behalf of the Board by making use of the cement and M.S. rods belonging to the Board and that the poles, when manufactured, were to be the property of the Board. It is then manifest that the transaction was not one of sale, but was only a works contract. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal and by the taxing authorities is not sustainable in law. 7.. In the result, T.R.C. Nos. 41 and 45 of 1974 will also stand allowed and the orders of assessment to sales tax passed against the petitioner for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 will stand set aside. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax revision cases also. Petitions allowed.
-
1975 (4) TMI 115 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve or transfer or in the case of the office being vacant, the case can be heard by a Bench consisting of the other two members. It is obviously added for filling up the lacuna to meet the contingency of the Chairman being absent. If he is present, it is his privilege and power to constitute Benches. One of such Benches can consist of himself and one of the members as provided by sub-section (3)(a)(iii). Now, coming to the facts of the case, the appeal was heard by a Bench consisting of the Chairman and another member. When the Chairman himself was present and is a member of the committee, that means he has constituted that Bench. Therefore, it is perfectly in accordance with section 3(3)(a)(iii). This shows that the contention of Sri Dasaratharama Reddi is wholly untenable. The other questions raised by the learned counsel are only questions of fact which do not warrant interference in a tax revision case. Consequently, the tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (4) TMI 114 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rying on the transactions must exist. But no test is decisive of the intention to carry on the business in the light of all the circumstances an Inference that a person desires to carry on the business of selling goods may be raised. Earlier in that decision it was said To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profitmotive, and not for sport or pleasure. 3.. All the authorities have found on cogent materials that the assessee was dealing in these articles regularly and in the course of business. As such, the answer to question No. (1) can only be in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. In so far as the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the answer to the second question which Is worded on the assumption that the firm is not a dealer in those goods does not call for any answer. 4.. The tax revision case is dismissed with costs.
-
1975 (4) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sales in question made by the assessee were sales effected in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India and as such were exempt from imposition of sales tax under article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution?
Held that:- Allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the assessee. Respectfully following the ratio and reasoning of this court in the above-quoted observations in Serajuddin's case [1975 (4) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] by which we are bound, we accept the contentions canvassed on behalf of the appellant and negative those advanced by the assessee.
-
1975 (4) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the agreements between the appellants and the State Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) were in the course of export, and, therefore, immune from liability to the Central Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed.
-
1975 (4) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the article 'carpet woollen yam' is covered by the term 'yarn' mentioned in item No. 4 of Notification No. ST-907/X dated 31st March, 1956, and item No. 33 of Notification No. ST-1365/X dated 1st April, 1960, taxable at 6 pies and 3 pies per cent respectively or a kind of woollen goods as mentioned at item No. 46 taxable at one anna per rupee according to Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, or whether it is an unclassified item taxable at 2 per cent?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As "woollen carpet kati" is neither "yarn" nor "woollen goods" falling under the aforesaid notifications issued under section 3-A. It is an unclassified item and its turnover is liable to tax at the rate of 2 per cent under section 3 of the Act. Thus we affirm the answer given by the High Court to the question referred.
-
1975 (4) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT
Whether cream sold in soldered containers can be described appropriately as "products sold in sealed containers"?
Held that: Appeal dismissed. Why should a sale, if generally exempt from tax, being a milk product, forfeit it merely because the wholesome step of sealing the container and insulating the food article from contamination, is taken during transit? But the counsel for the State has expressed his inability to throw light on this aspect or on the reasons for the policy. Had the State's counter-affidavit been more illuminating on these questions, it would have performed a service to this court and to the public and rendered the task of judicial construction simpler.
-
1975 (4) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, under the circumstances of the case, starting point of limitation for the department to prefer a revision against the original assessment order would start from the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the department about the passing of the assessment?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Mere reference to the High Court of a question for opinion may not afford an adequate solution. Only legislative amendment may furnish an efficacious and speedy remedy. The present is a typical illustration of such a case. The difficulty in the interpetation of the unhappy language of this statute was felt in 1960 and even earlier. We are now in 1975. For fifteen long years, the department has been fighting this tardy, expensive and sterile litigation. Even after this long-drawn struggle culminating in judicial finale, a doubt might persist as to whether the court has succeeded in divining the true legislative intent. It is therefore desirable that the legislature should amend the statute and make its intent clear. In any event, to make the law workable, it should make a statutory provision requiring the Sales Tax Officer to send forthwith a copy of every assessment order made by him to the Commissioner for information
-
1975 (4) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Share warrants and entries in register of members, Power of court to rectify register of members
-
1975 (4) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... mes capriciously or in bad faith. The applicants made the request for transfer of the shares in their names long after they had already been registered in the name of the trust. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala 1961 31 Comp. Cas. 387 (SC) the Supreme Court emphasised that the scope of the appellate power under section 111 of the Companies Act was co-extensive with the court s power under section 155. There is no dispute on the point. The case is inapplicable. Issue No. 2, which was mdash Whether the application is not maintainable on account of its involving complicated questions of title ? is accordingly decided in the affirmative. In view of the decision on this issue, it is not necessary to decide the other issues raised in the case. The applicants will be at liberty to take such steps for settlement of their title to the shares as they may be added. In the result the application fails and is accordingly dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.
-
1975 (4) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... s of the company, and the same can be recovered by the society from the liquidator before the liquidator proceeds to distribute the assets of the company. It must be paid over in full before any distribution of the assets of the company takes place. The question posed by the liquidator may be reframed us under Whether the amount standing to the credit of the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Mills (Rajrathna Sheth Jhaverchand Laxmichand) Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. in the books of account of the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. (in liquidation) is impressed with the character of a trust and hence it does not form part of the assets of the company and that the liquidator is bound to pay the same in priority before any distribution of the assets of the company is made by him. The question so reframed is answered in the affirmative. The alternative question posed by the liquidator does not arise and even if it does arise, it is answered in the negative. Order accordingly.
-
1975 (4) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
Order under section 195 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, made by the District Judge, Jalgaon, on November 22, 1967, summoning the appellants before him for the purpose of examining them concerning the trade, dealings, affairs and property of the respondent-company questioned
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The enquiry under section 195 must be just and beneficial for the purposes of the winding-up and must not be aimed at harassing or annoying the persons summoned for examination.
-
1975 (4) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... e transferee-company at or for the price of Rs. 120 for each such equity snare. (iv)The cash payment of Rs. 120 in terms of sub-clause (i) hereof shall, in the case of the transfer of the shares to the person or persons appointed under sub-clause (iii) hereof, be made within 30 days of the effective date, and in cases where the share or shares are not required to be so transferred, such payment shall also be made within 30 days of the effective date. This modification will, of course, apply also to those who have already exercised the option and received Rs. 110 per share. As stated in clause 16 of the scheme before me, this order will be subject to the sanction of the appropriate High Court being obtained under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act by the transferee-company. Under rule 81 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, I direct that a certified copy of this order must be filed with the Registrar of Companies within 4 weeks from the date of signing of the judgment.
-
1975 (4) TMI 40 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ess-mud is, no doubt, used as manure by agriculturists and can be certainly sold in the open market but it has to be cleared quickly because of its foul smell and limitations of space inside the factory. That is. If there is no buyer readily available, the assessee has to shift it out of the factory quickly and since it was its own agricultural farm, the press-mud lying unsold was sent there and it was not necessary that the assessee should make a profit by trading with itself, so to say, on this account. These submissions also carry considerable force. The result is, the addition of Rs. 77,282 is deleted. 5. The next objection relating to an addition of Rs. 1.000 was not pressed and hence rejected. 6. Lastly objection is taken to a disallowance of Rs. 5,230 out of entertainment expenditure. In our view, the disallowance was in order in view of the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Raman Das and Sons(1) case. We decline to interfere. 7. The appeal is allowed in part.
|
