|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 220 Records
-
1991 (5) TMI 245
Issues Involved:
1. Whether "jewellery" and "ornaments" are the same commercial commodity.
2. Whether the sale of jewellery should be taxed at a reduced rate of 2% applicable to gold ornaments.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether "jewellery" and "ornaments" are the same commercial commodity.
The primary controversy revolves around the interpretation of the term "ornaments" as per Notification No. F. 4(87) 44-Fin. (E)(ii) dated June 30, 1966, under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The assessing authority concluded that "ornaments" referred exclusively to those made of gold, and any studded with stones, precious or otherwise, should be classified as "jewellery" and not "ornaments." This interpretation was based on a prior decision for the assessment year 1968-69, where the assessee's sales were taxed at 5%.
The court examined various dictionary definitions and judicial precedents to discern the common parlance meaning of "ornaments" and "jewellery." Dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary and New Webster's Dictionary define "ornament" as an object meant to add beauty, while "jewellery" includes articles made of precious materials for personal adornment.
Judicial precedents from the United States, United Kingdom, and Indian courts were also reviewed. For instance, in Com v. Stephens, Shaw, C.J., opined that "jewellery" is a generic term encompassing all articles of personal adornment. Similarly, in the UK case In re Whitby, Lord Greene M.R. held that "jewellery" includes gems sold by jewellers, not just made-up articles of adornment.
Indian courts, including the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Jamula Srirangam and the Allahabad High Court in Ganeshi Lal and Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, have consistently interpreted "jewellery" to include gold ornaments, even when studded with precious stones. The Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Arundhati Balkrishna and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Patiala v. Rajeshwar Parshad also affirmed this view.
The Delhi High Court, in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Smt. Savitri Devi, reiterated that "jewellery" includes gold ornaments, emphasizing that precious stones are not necessary for an item to be considered jewellery. The court concluded that the term "jewellery" as understood in common parlance includes gold ornaments.
Issue 2: Whether the sale of jewellery should be taxed at a reduced rate of 2% applicable to gold ornaments.
The assessee challenged the assessing authority's decision to tax studded gold ornaments at 5% instead of the 2% rate applicable to gold ornaments. The court examined whether gold ornaments could be classified as "jewellery" only when studded with precious stones.
The court referred to various judicial decisions and dictionary definitions to establish that gold ornaments, whether studded or not, fall under the category of "jewellery." The Allahabad High Court in Ganeshi Lal and Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the term "ornaments" is comprehensive and includes all kinds of jewellery, whether studded with precious stones or not.
The court concluded that the understanding of "ornaments" and "jewellery" in common parlance and judicial interpretation supports the view that gold ornaments, even when studded, should be taxed at the rate applicable to gold ornaments. Therefore, the sale of jewellery should be subjected to the reduced tax rate of 2%.
Conclusion:
The court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, holding that "jewellery" and "ornaments" are the same commercial commodity and that the sale of jewellery should be taxed at the reduced rate of 2% applicable to gold ornaments. The reference was answered in the affirmative, with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 244
Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 2. Alleged arbitrary and mechanical imposition of maximum penalty by authorities. Summary:1. Constitutionality of Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963:The main plea raised is that section 45A of the Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional, as it vests uncanalised and unbridled powers in the officers to impose the penalty, which is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the language of section 45A and various judicial precedents to determine if the section imposes an absolute liability. It was concluded that the section does not impose an absolute liability and contains an inbuilt element of mens rea or mental element, as indicated by the words "evasion" or "sought to be evaded". The court emphasized that the statutory authority must act bona fide, reasonably, and fairly within the frontiers limited by the statute. The discretion vested in the officer under section 45A is not unexaminable or unfettered. The court found that the section provides adequate safeguards, including the requirement for the authority to be "satisfied" based on material evidence before initiating proceedings. The court held that section 45A does not confer unbridled or uncanalised power to impose a penalty and is not violative of article 14. 2. Alleged arbitrary and mechanical imposition of maximum penalty by authorities:In O.P. Nos. 7361 of 1990 and 6316 of 1990, the petitioners contended that the authorities levied the maximum penalty arbitrarily and mechanically, without independent evaluation and appraisal. The court accepted this plea, referencing a Bench decision in St. Michael's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, which stated that the quantum of penalty should depend upon the gravity of the offence. The court quashed the penalty orders in these cases on the grounds that the authorities had not exercised the judicial discretion vested in them according to law, and directed the concerned Intelligence Officer to reappraise the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Conclusion:Writ Appeal No. 108 of 1990 is dismissed. O.P. Nos. 7361 of 1990 and 6316 of 1990 are allowed to the limited extent of directing the authorities to reappraise the penalty imposition. Writ appeal dismissed. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 243
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of turmeric powder and pepper powder under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954.
2. Whether the conversion of whole turmeric and whole pepper into powder form constitutes manufacturing or processing.
3. Interpretation of the term "notified commodity" and its implications on tax liability.
4. Application of the single point tax scheme under the 1954 Act.
5. Constitutional challenges to the tax assessments.
6. Double taxation concerns.
7. Validity of previous judicial decisions and their applicability to the current case.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Turmeric Powder and Pepper Powder:
The primary issue is whether sales of turmeric powder and pepper powder, obtained from whole turmeric and whole pepper, are subject to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Tribunal held that the activity of converting whole turmeric and whole pepper into powdered form and packing the same for sale amounts to processing and manufacturing under section 2(b) of the 1954 Act. This makes the applicant a "dealer" and the sales of such powdered products exigible to sales tax. The Tribunal concluded that the powdered form constitutes a new commercial commodity, attracting tax on its sales.
2. Manufacturing vs. Processing:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the conversion of whole turmeric and whole pepper into powder form constitutes manufacturing or processing. It was determined that the activity amounts to both processing and manufacturing. The Tribunal referenced various legal precedents and statutory interpretations, concluding that the terms "manufactured," "made," and "processed" are not synonymous but bear different meanings. The conversion into powder form results in a new commercial commodity, distinct from the original whole form.
3. Interpretation of "Notified Commodity":
The Tribunal examined the definition and implications of "notified commodity" under section 25 of the 1954 Act. It was clarified that the specification of turmeric and pepper in various forms (whole, broken, ground, or powdered) under section 25 does not imply that these forms constitute a single commercial commodity. Instead, the specification indicates that each form is governed by the 1954 Act. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the specification under section 25 rules out the possibility of different commercial commodities emerging from different forms of the same substance.
4. Single Point Tax Scheme:
The applicant argued that the scheme of the 1954 Act is to levy a single point tax, and taxing the powdered form of turmeric and pepper amounts to a second point tax. The Tribunal held that single point tax is not a tax on the substance or material but on the commercial commodity. As long as the commodity retains its identity, it cannot be taxed again. However, once it is transformed into a new commercial commodity, it becomes subject to tax in its new identity.
5. Constitutional Challenges:
The constitutional challenges raised in the writ petitions, including the vires of section 2(b) of the 1954 Act under articles 286 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution, were not pressed during the arguments. The Tribunal did not delve into these challenges, focusing instead on the statutory interpretation and application of the 1954 Act.
6. Double Taxation Concerns:
The applicant contended that taxing the powdered form of turmeric and pepper, after having paid tax on the whole form, amounts to double taxation. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that double taxation in the strict legal sense requires the same property or subject-matter to be taxed by the same authority for the same purpose. Since powdered turmeric and pepper are new commercial commodities, there is no double taxation.
7. Validity of Previous Judicial Decisions:
The Tribunal considered previous judicial decisions, including Mahabirprasad Birhiwala's case and Rasoi Products' case. The Tribunal found itself in agreement with the decision in Mahabirprasad Birhiwala's case, which held that the conversion of whole spices into powdered form amounts to processing, making the sales of such powdered products subject to tax. The Tribunal did not find any reason to revise its previous decision in L.N. Bhandar's case, which had similar contentions.
Conclusion:
The writ applications were dismissed, but the applicant was allowed to prefer appeals on specific factual grounds related to goods returned by purchasers and the estimation of sales of whole commodities. The Tribunal upheld the taxability of powdered turmeric and pepper, recognizing them as new commercial commodities subject to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954.
-
1991 (5) TMI 242
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the revision petition in a case involving the assessment year 1978-79 for a carpet business. The Sales Tax Tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority for fresh assessment without fixing a turnover figure. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 241
Issues:
1. Inclusion of freight charges in sale price for levy cement sales under Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Inclusion of packing charges in sale price for levy cement sales under Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Inclusion of packing charges in sale price for non-levy cement sales under Central Sales Tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court addressed three key issues considered by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first issue was whether the turnover of freight charges for levy cement sales should be part of the sale price taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The second issue involved determining if the packing charges for levy cement sales also constitute part of the sale price under the Act. The third issue pertained to whether the packing charges for non-levy cement sales should be included in the sale price subject to taxation.
The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the first two points had been settled against the assessee in a previous judgment by the High Court. Therefore, the focus of the argument was on the third point regarding the inclusion of packing charges for non-levy cement sales in the sale price for tax purposes. The counsel contended that these charges should not be considered part of the sale price under the Central Sales Tax Act. However, the Court disagreed with this argument, citing a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rai Bharat Das & Bros. The Supreme Court had ruled that packing charges could be included in the sale price if there was an implied agreement for such charges, as they constitute an integral part of the sale price under the Act.
The Court further referenced a Full Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. V.V. Vanniaperumal & Co., which distinguished between pre-sale and post-sale expenses. Drawing from the Supreme Court's decision in Rai Bharat Das Bros. case, the Court concluded that packing charges for non-levy cement sales should be considered an integral part of the sale price. The reasoning behind this decision was that the packing of the cement was essential to facilitate the sales, making the packing charges a necessary component of the sale price as defined by the Central Sales Tax Act.
In light of the legal precedents and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the inclusion of packing charges for non-levy cement sales in the sale price subject to taxation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax revision case, ruling in favor of considering packing charges as part of the sale price for non-levy cement sales under the Act.
-
1991 (5) TMI 240
Whether Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6 of the notice?
.
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the instant case the certified cheque of the Union Bank of India drawn on is own branch must be treated as sufficient for the purpose of achieving the object of the condition and the Tender Committee took the abundant caution by a further verification from the bank. In this situation it is not correct to hold that the Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6, specially when it was in its interest of not to reject the said bid which was the highest. Therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of the respondent no. 1 filed before the High Court.
-
1991 (5) TMI 239
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "sale" under the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Application of the Constitution Forty-sixth Amendment in taxation of works contracts.
3. Authority of competent Legislatures to make provisions for taxation.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the definition of "sale" under the Central Sales Tax Act in connection with an amendment made to the registration certificate of the respondent, who was engaged in tyre retreading business. The assessing authority initially held that tyre retreading did not amount to a "sale" but was a works contract, leading to the cancellation of the amendment to the registration certificate. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, considered the Constitution Forty-sixth Amendment, which included the taxation of transfer of property in works contracts, and concluded that such transfers fell under the definition of "sale" in the Central Sales Tax Act.
The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in incorporating the content of the Constitution Amendment into the Central Sales Tax Act without a corresponding amendment to the Act itself. The Court agreed with the Revenue, emphasizing that while the Constitution provided authority to tax transfers of property in works contracts, the Central Sales Tax Act had not been amended to reflect this extended definition. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to broaden the definition of "sale" based on the Constitution Amendment was deemed legally incorrect.
The Court held that until the Central Sales Tax Act was amended to include the provisions of the Constitution Amendment, it was impermissible to read the Amendment's content into the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, reinstated the cancellation of the amendments to the registration certificate, and allowed the tax revision case in favor of the Revenue.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the necessity for legislative amendments to align statutory provisions with constitutional amendments and emphasized the importance of interpreting legal definitions in accordance with the specific language and scope of the relevant statutes.
-
1991 (5) TMI 238
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Companies Act
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner argued that the courts in Delhi do not have jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, as the alleged wrongful acts occurred at Mandi Govind Garh, Punjab. The respondent contended that since the company's head office is in Delhi, the courts in Delhi have jurisdiction under Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The judgment highlighted that under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence should be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The court noted that the alleged wrongful acts, including the removal of books of account, machinery, and gas cylinders, occurred at Mandi Govind Garh. Therefore, the courts at Mandi Govind Garh have jurisdiction. The mere location of the company's head office in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction to the courts in Delhi.
2. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act:
Section 630(1) of the Companies Act penalizes any officer or employee of a company who wrongfully obtains possession of any property of the company or wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to unauthorized purposes. The petitioner was accused of removing books of account, machinery parts, and gas cylinders from the factory premises without authority and withdrawing large amounts from the company accounts.
The court determined that the offence under Section 630(1) is complete the moment a person wrongfully withholds or misapplies the company property. The accountability or return of the property is not an ingredient for the commission of the offence under Section 630(1). Thus, the alleged wrongful acts by the petitioner at Mandi Govind Garh constitute the offence under Section 630(1).
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Companies Act:
The judgment referred to various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Companies Act to determine the place of trial and jurisdiction. Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the trial of offences of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or where any part of the property was received or retained.
The court also referred to Section 2(11) and Section 10 of the Companies Act, which define the jurisdiction of courts concerning company matters. The High Court has jurisdiction except where jurisdiction is conferred on any district court subordinate to the High Court. No procedure is provided under the Companies Act for the trial of an offence by a criminal court, so the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the place of trial for an offence under Section 630 of the Act.
The court concluded that the complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, does not disclose any material act committed by the petitioner within its jurisdiction. The mere fact of the head office being situated in Delhi does not give jurisdiction to the said court to proceed with the complaint. The return of the property is not an ingredient of the offence under Section 630 of the Act, and jurisdiction about the return of the property vests with the High Court as provided under Section 10 of the Act.
Conclusion:
The complaint, Gopal Gases Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 38, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi, through its director, Panna Lal Bhatia v. Shri Ramesh G. Bhatia, under Section 630 of the Companies Act, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, stands quashed. The courts at Mandi Govind Garh have jurisdiction to try the complaint as the alleged wrongful acts occurred there.
-
1991 (5) TMI 237
Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction to inquire under section 29(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
2. Revival of adjudication proceedings after abandonment.
3. Bona fide exercise of statutory powers and reasonableness of delay.
4. Requirement for production of vital documents from the Reserve Bank of India and the Company Law Board.
Detailed Analysis
Jurisdiction to Inquire under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act
The petitioners contended that the respondents lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the purchase of shares of R. G. Shaw Companies by Carrasco under section 29(1)(b) of the Act. The court noted that section 29(1)(b) restricts a person resident outside India or a non-resident company from acquiring shares in India without RBI permission. However, the court concluded that the purchase of shares of R. G. Shaw Companies, registered in the UK, did not constitute the purchase of shares in India of Shaw Wallace. The court emphasized that "the undertaking of a company is not the same thing as shares of that company" and that the agreement did not refer to the purchase of shares in India but to acquiring indirect control of Shaw Wallace shares. Thus, section 29(1)(b) was deemed inapplicable.
Revival of Adjudication Proceedings
The petitioners argued that the adjudication proceedings had been dropped or abandoned after January 21, 1987, and could not be revived. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the proceedings were dropped. The court noted that while the prosecution and opportunity notice were withdrawn, the adjudication proceedings were explicitly stated to continue. The court held that the delay in reviving the proceedings was not fatal and that the proceedings were never formally abandoned.
Bona Fide Exercise of Statutory Powers and Reasonableness of Delay
The petitioners contended that the revival of adjudication proceedings after over two years was not bona fide and was unreasonable, unfair, and oppressive. The court examined the records and found that the delay was due to administrative processes and changes in the Special Directors. The court concluded that the delay did not indicate mala fide intentions or abuse of power. The court emphasized that a statutory authority must act within the scope of its powers, and there was no evidence of improper conduct by the Special Director.
Requirement for Production of Vital Documents
The petitioners requested the production of documents from the Reserve Bank of India and the Company Law Board to support their defense. The court agreed that these documents were material and relevant to the petitioners' case. The court criticized the Special Director for not summoning the records, stating that this failure caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to show they had the requisite RBI permission, and they were entitled to request the production of relevant official records.
Conclusion
The court quashed the show-cause notice dated October 16, 1985, and all subsequent proceedings, restraining the respondents from proceeding thereunder. The court held that the provisions of section 29(1)(b) and section 47(1) of the Act were not applicable in this case. The court concluded that the adjudication proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction and that the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to defend themselves due to the non-production of vital documents. The writ petition succeeded, and the rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 226
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of the register of members.
2. Validity of the transfer of 3,417 shares.
3. Valuation of shares by auditors.
4. Fresh issue of 17,666 shares.
5. Readiness and willingness of the petitioners to purchase shares.
6. Validity of board and general meetings.
7. Trustees' power to act by majority.
8. Allegations of fraud and collusion.
9. Principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rectification of the Register of Members:
The petitioners sought the rectification of the register of members of the first respondent company by removing the names of certain respondents in respect of 3,417 shares belonging to the estate of Dr. N.B. Parulekar and 93 shares belonging to the third respondent. The court examined the validity of the transfer of these shares and the issuance of new shares.
2. Validity of the Transfer of 3,417 Shares:
The petitioners argued that the transfer forms were invalid as they were not signed by all executors. However, the court found that under the terms of the will and trust deeds, the trustees were entitled to act by majority. The resolution passed by the trustees authorized any one of them to execute the transfer forms. Thus, the transfer was valid despite the procedural irregularity of not indicating the authority on the transfer forms.
3. Valuation of Shares by Auditors:
The petitioners contended that the valuation by the auditors was unfair and collusive. The court held that under Article 61 of the company's articles of association, the auditors' valuation was final unless fraud or collusion was proven. The petitioners failed to provide evidence of fraud or collusion. The court noted that the shares were sold at a higher price than the auditors' valuation, indicating a fair valuation.
4. Fresh Issue of 17,666 Shares:
The petitioners challenged the fresh issue of shares at par value, arguing it was done without proper notice and to strengthen the control of respondent No. 5. The court acknowledged the irregularity in not listing this item on the agenda but found that the subsequent extraordinary general meeting ratified the issue. The court held that the issue was not illegal and could not be invalidated under Section 155 of the Companies Act.
5. Readiness and Willingness of the Petitioners to Purchase Shares:
The petitioners claimed they were ready and willing to purchase the shares but were deprived due to the high valuation. The court found that the petitioners did not agree to the valuation at the time and later accepted it only after the shares were sold. The court concluded that the petitioners' belated acceptance was not genuine.
6. Validity of Board and General Meetings:
The petitioners argued that the board meeting approving the transfer of shares was invalid due to insufficient notice and the item not being on the agenda. The court held that Section 286 of the Companies Act did not require every item to be specified on the agenda. The court also found no illegality in the board's actions, despite the irregularity.
7. Trustees' Power to Act by Majority:
The court addressed the petitioners' argument that the majority of trustees could not act without consulting the minority. The court found that the majority decision was valid as the first petitioner was aware of the meeting and its purpose. The majority decision was binding as the first petitioner did not challenge it and acted upon it.
8. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion:
The petitioners alleged collusion between the auditors, executors, and purchasers to deprive them of their rights. The court found no evidence or particulars of fraud or collusion. The court highlighted the conflict of interest for the petitioners, who were both trustees and interested purchasers.
9. Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the auditors violated natural justice by not providing a draft valuation for their comments. The court held that auditors, acting as experts, were not required to follow such a procedure. The auditors had given the petitioners an opportunity to make submissions, which they did not utilize.
Conclusion:
The appeals against the conditional order allowing the main company petition were dismissed. The court found no basis to invalidate the transfer of shares or the fresh issue of shares. The petitioners' failure to deposit the required sum within the stipulated period and the absence of evidence of fraud or collusion led to the dismissal of their claims. The court emphasized that Section 155 of the Companies Act was not intended for correcting procedural errors and that the petitioners had other legal remedies available.
-
1991 (5) TMI 218
Issues:
Interference with stay order by Additional Sessions Judge regarding proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 pending before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by V.B. Bansal, J. pertains to Criminal Revisions involving a common question of whether the stay order dated February 12, 1990, issued by an Additional Sessions Judge in cases related to section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, requires intervention by the High Court. The case involves Texmaco Ltd., a public limited company, which acquired a housing colony for its employees through a scheme of arrangement with Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited. An ex-employee, Ram Dayal, who retired in 1989, allegedly did not vacate the quarters as required by the company, leading to charges under section 630 of the Companies Act and other offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate summoned Ram Dayal as an accused based on preliminary evidence.
Ram Dayal sought a stay on the proceedings pending a civil case, and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initially decided to continue the proceedings but withhold the judgment until the civil case's outcome was determined. Ram Dayal challenged this decision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who granted a stay on the proceedings until the civil litigation was resolved. However, the High Court, after considering arguments from both parties, found that the criminal proceedings cannot be stayed solely due to the existence of civil litigation between the parties. The High Court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the stay order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, and directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with the law.
The High Court highlighted that while the respondents raised additional pleas in the trial court and before the High Court, these pleas were not the subject of adjudication in the revision petition. It was emphasized that the trial court would address the raised pleas during the proceedings, and the criminal proceedings should not be halted based solely on the ongoing civil litigation. As a result, the impugned order of February 12, 1990, by the Additional Sessions Judge was overturned, and the trial court was instructed to continue with the case as per legal procedures. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on a specified date for further proceedings.
-
1991 (5) TMI 211
Issues involved: Winding up petitions against a company for non-payment of debts, service of statutory notices, company's alleged inability to pay debts, disputes raised by the respondent company.
Judgment Summary:
Service of Statutory Notices:
The petitioners sought winding up of the company for non-payment of debts. However, the petitioners failed to provide proof of serving statutory notices as required by section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The notices were not delivered at the registered office of the company, as mandated. The failure to comply with the notice requirements precludes the petitioners from invoking the deemed inability of the company to pay its debts under section 434(1)(a).
Company's Alleged Inability to Pay Debts:
Even without invoking the deemed inability provision, a creditor can seek winding up if the company is unable to pay its debts under section 433(e) read with section 434(1)(c). The petitioners did not specifically plead the company's inability to pay debts or address contingent liabilities. Disputes raised by the respondent company regarding the issuance of cheques before the due date, lack of funds, and non-receipt of goods were found to be bona fide. The respondent company's contentions were considered genuine, and the petitioners failed to provide evidence to counter them.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the winding-up petitions, noting that the respondent company raised bona fide disputes regarding the claims made. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict compliance with statutory notice requirements and the need for petitioners to substantiate claims of a company's inability to pay debts with sufficient evidence.
-
1991 (5) TMI 202
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, Shri V. N. Bhaskar, should be joined or substituted as parties in the present petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Substitution of Heirs and Legal Representatives
The appeal was directed against the order of a learned single judge who dismissed the petitioner's application to bring the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, respondent No. 2, on record. The learned judge relied on the observations in J.K. Investment Trust Ltd. v. Muir Mills Co. Ltd., concluding that in a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased are neither necessary nor proper parties. The judge observed that the acts of oppression alleged against the deceased could not be ascribed to his legal representatives, and no cause of action existed against them.
The petitioner alleged that the deceased had diverted the company's funds to support his family's concerns at the detriment of the company. The specific averments included:
- Diversion of company funds to various family concerns.
- Use of company resources for family concerns at nominal costs.
- Accommodation of family concerns within the company's premises.
- Payment of salaries and expenses for managing directors engaged in other family concerns.
- Payment of commissions to a family paper concern.
- Other undisclosed interests and transactions prejudicial to the company.
The prayer clause in the petition sought:
- A winding up order on grounds of oppression and mismanagement.
- Purchase of shares issued to B.N. Bhaskar Cement Products P. Ltd.
- Reconstitution of the board of directors.
- Alternative winding up of the company.
The appellant's counsel argued that under sections 397 and 398, allegations of misfeasance, misapplication of funds, and breach of trust should be investigated, and necessary orders under section 402 could affect the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. He contended that the scope of sections 397 and 398 is broad, and orders under section 402 affecting anyone's rights necessitate hearing those affected, including the heirs and legal representatives.
The court examined whether the heirs and legal representatives should be joined under section 543, which empowers the court to assess damages against delinquent directors. Section 543 allows applications for relief during winding up proceedings if misconduct is found. Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, also provides for applications under section 543 during proceedings under sections 397 and 398. The court concluded that an application under section 543 requires a specific prayer for compensation or restoration of money or property, which was absent in the present petition.
The court referred to the decision in Official Liquidator v. Parthasarathi Sinha, where an application under section 543 was allowed against the heirs of a deceased director. However, in the present case, there was no such prayer, and thus, the heirs and legal representatives need not be joined for relief under section 543.
The respondent's counsel argued that heirs of a deceased director are not required to be substituted in an application under sections 397 and 398, citing a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. The court observed that liability under sections 539 to 544 can be enforced only against a living director and not against heirs and legal representatives without recourse to section 406.
The court also considered a specific prayer in the petition for the purchase of shares issued to B.N. Bhaskar Company P. Ltd. and shares transferred from the R.N. Bhaskar group to the B.N. Bhaskar group. Such an order under section 402 could affect the rights of the heirs and legal representatives, necessitating their hearing to avoid violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the court concluded that the heirs and legal representatives should be substituted and joined as parties to allow them an opportunity to meet the petitioner's case regarding the share purchase.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the learned single judge's order and permitting the substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, Shri V. N. Bhaskar, as respondents. No order as to costs was made.
-
1991 (5) TMI 195
Issues:
1. Confiscation of silver bullion found in a jewelry shop without proper documentation.
2. Imposition of penalties on the shop owner and partner.
3. Responsibility of individuals in possession of confiscated goods.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of silver bullion weighing 23.297 kgs found in a jewelry shop without proper documentation, in violation of Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act. The appellants, shop owner and partner, contested the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Addl. Collector allowed redemption on payment of a fine but imposed penalties on both appellants. The primary argument was that the silver was intended for making jewelry, not for export, and the lack of proper documentation should not lead to confiscation. However, the tribunal upheld the confiscation, emphasizing the need to prevent smuggling of silver from specified areas without valid documents, even if the silver was meant for legitimate use in jewelry making.
2. The appellants argued that they should not be penalized as they were not directly involved in the acquisition or transfer of the silver, and the partner claimed he was not a working partner during the material period. The tribunal rejected these arguments, holding that the responsibility for the acquired silver fell on the shop owner and partner, regardless of their physical presence during the search and seizure. The tribunal found that the silver's acquisition was for the benefit of the firm, and both appellants were liable for penalties. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the imposition of penalties on both appellants.
3. The tribunal emphasized that the absence of evidence regarding the origin of the silver, the lack of customer details, and the failure to produce proper acquisition documents indicated a potential illicit nature of the silver's presence in the jewelry shop. The tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed on the appellants were justified, considering their responsibility for the shop's operations and the acquisition of the confiscated silver. The tribunal upheld the order of confiscation and penalties, stating that the leniency shown by the Addl. Collector in allowing redemption did not warrant interference.
-
1991 (5) TMI 194
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Import and Export Procedure
2. Classification of Goods as Disposal Goods
3. Burden of Proof on the Department
4. Examination and Re-examination of Goods
5. Pricing and Trade Practices
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Violation of Import and Export Procedure:
The appellants were accused of violating para 100(1) of the Import and Export Procedure, 1988-91, by importing Polyester Woven Labels without a valid ITC license. The department argued that the goods were unauthorized under Section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector confiscated the goods and imposed fines and penalties, which were later reduced by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
2. Classification of Goods as Disposal Goods:
The department's case was based on the observation that the imported labels were jumbled together and not in marketable condition, suggesting they were disposal goods. The appellant contended that the goods were stock lot items, not disposal goods. The appellant argued that the goods were new and appropriately packed, and that the term "disposal goods" implies goods that the owner is anxious to get rid of due to deterioration, outdatedness, or lack of marketability. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the department failed to prove that the goods were disposal goods.
3. Burden of Proof on the Department:
The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the department to establish that the imported goods were disposal goods. The department relied on the fact that the goods were of different sizes and purchased at a lower price, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were disposal goods. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, including the Bombay High Court's ruling in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 936, which stated that the mere fact that goods are of varying sizes and sold at a reduced price is not sufficient to classify them as disposal goods.
4. Examination and Re-examination of Goods:
The appellant requested a re-examination of the goods to prove that they were new and appropriately packed. The department did not consider this request. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had pressed for re-examination in their reply to the show cause notice and that it was the department's responsibility to conduct the re-examination. The Tribunal found that the department's failure to re-examine the goods weakened their case.
5. Pricing and Trade Practices:
The department argued that the goods were purchased on a weighment basis, which is against trade practice, and that the price was significantly lower than similar goods. The Tribunal found that the price variation alone was not sufficient to classify the goods as disposal goods. The Tribunal noted that the price of goods can vary based on quality and that the department did not provide adequate evidence to prove that the lower price indicated the goods were disposal goods.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the department failed to establish that the imported goods were disposal goods. The appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the authorities below were set aside. The appellant was granted consequential reliefs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 187
The Revenue appealed an order allowing a refund claimed for duty paid before 6-8-1977. The Revenue argued the refund claim was time-barred, but the Tribunal upheld the order, stating that paying duty under protest without an express provision does not affect the right to claim a refund. The appeal was rejected.
-
1991 (5) TMI 186
The appeal involved the classification of corrugated plastic roofing made with various materials. The Collector of Central Excise was aggrieved by the classification under Item 68 CET, but the order was upheld based on a Supreme Court decision. The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. (Case citation: 1991 (5) TMI 186 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1991 (5) TMI 185
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant violated central excise laws by manufacturing and clearing electric fans without obtaining a license or making necessary declarations.
2. Whether the adjudicating authority was justified in confiscating the seized goods, imposing penalties, and demanding duty payment.
3. Whether the appellant was entitled to exemptions from licensing control and duty payment under relevant notifications.
4. Whether the compounding fee imposed on the appellant was justified.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant being accused of manufacturing electric fans without the required central excise license or declarations. The show cause notice alleged various violations, including clandestine manufacturing and clearance of electric fans without paying central excise duty. The adjudicating authority upheld the violations, leading to the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the production and clearance were below the exemption limits for licensing control and duty payment, making the penalties unjustified.
2. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods and imposed penalties on the appellant, citing violations of central excise laws. However, the appellate tribunal found that the appellant was exempt from licensing control and duty payment under relevant notifications due to the low production and clearance value of excisable goods. The tribunal set aside the demand for duty payment and confiscation of goods, deeming them unjustified based on the appellant's compliance with exemption criteria.
3. The tribunal analyzed the applicability of exemptions from licensing control and duty payment under specific notifications. It noted that the appellant's production value fell below the thresholds requiring licensing or duty payment, rendering the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority unwarranted. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between licensing control and duty payment exemptions, citing legal precedents to support its decision to set aside the demand for duty payment and confiscation of goods.
4. The compounding fee imposed on the appellant was also challenged, with the appellant arguing that the show cause notice did not propose such a fee. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, setting aside the compounding fee as the appellant's production and clearance values did not necessitate obtaining a license. The tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellant, allowing the appeal and dismissing cross objections, thereby providing a comprehensive resolution to the legal issues raised in the case.
-
1991 (5) TMI 184
Issues Involved: Seizure and confiscation of zip fasteners, sewing machine needles, and pant hooks of foreign origin; application of Section 123 of the Customs Act; burden of proof regarding the origin of goods; legality of confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 111(p) of the Customs Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Zip Fasteners:
The appellant contended that the YKK Zip Fasteners were of Indian origin, supported by a receipt from Modi Enterprises. The department argued that the appellant failed to prove the Indian origin of the goods and that the bulk zip fasteners found in the appellant's premises were not recorded in the notified registers, violating Section 123 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the zip fasteners were indeed a notified item under Section 123, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. Despite the appellant producing a receipt, no investigation was conducted by the department to verify its authenticity. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation under Section 111(d) was not justified but confirmed the confiscation under Section 111(p) due to the appellant's failure to record the 500 pcs. of zip fasteners in the notified registers, thus violating Section 11(e) of the Customs Act.
2. Confiscation of Sewing Machine Needles:
The appellant produced an invoice from M/s. Devidayal Sales Private Limited, indicating the purchase of industrial sewing machine needles. The department contended that the invoice showed an ex-factory price, suggesting Indian origin, while the seized needles were foreign. The Tribunal noted that the invoice from M/s. Devidayal Sales Pvt. Ltd. indicated the import of needles from a foreign company, and no inquiry was made by the authorities to disprove this claim. Given the lack of investigation and the possibility that the needles were indeed imported by M/s. Devidayal, the Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside the confiscation of the sewing machine needles.
3. Confiscation of Pant Hooks:
The appellant did not dispute the foreign origin of the pant hooks but produced a challan from Prasaran Enterprises. The department argued that the mere foreign origin of the goods justified their seizure. The Tribunal, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in D. Bhoormull, emphasized that circumstantial evidence could justify the inference that goods were smuggled. However, the Tribunal found that the circumstances in the present case did not support such an inference. The mere fact that the goods were foreign did not suffice to prove they were smuggled. The Tribunal cited previous decisions stating that foreign origin alone was insufficient for confiscation without clear evidence of smuggling. Consequently, the confiscation of the pant hooks was set aside.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the sewing machine needles and pant hooks but confirmed the confiscation of the zip fasteners under Section 111(p) of the Customs Act. The penalty imposed on the appellant was also confirmed. The sewing machine needles and pant hooks were ordered to be returned to the appellant.
-
1991 (5) TMI 183
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of Indian currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act.
4. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act regarding the burden of proof.
5. Validity of the appellant's confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
6. Separate penalties on the sole proprietor and the proprietary firm.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellate tribunal confirmed the confiscation of wrist watch movements and watches seized from the appellant's residential and shop premises. Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of proving that the seized goods were not smuggled lies with the appellant. The appellant failed to produce any legal documents to support the lawful acquisition of these goods. The tribunal noted that the appellant's explanation that he purchased the goods from unknown brokers without bills did not discharge the burden of proof. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods was upheld as per the law.
2. Confiscation of Indian Currency under Section 121 of the Customs Act:
The tribunal examined whether the confiscation of Rs. 10,000 from the residential premises and Rs. 15,000 from the shop premises was justified. The appellant's confessional statement indicated that the seized currency was the sale proceeds of wrist watches fitted with Swiss movements bought from brokers without bills. The tribunal held that the statement, though retracted belatedly, was voluntary and admissible. The tribunal distinguished this case from previous cases cited by the appellant, noting that the appellant's statement and the seizure of foreign watch movements corroborated the conclusion that the currency represented the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Thus, the confiscation of the Indian currency was confirmed.
3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act:
The tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The appellant's failure to prove the lawful possession of the seized goods and currency justified the penalty. The tribunal noted that the appellant's statement and the circumstances of the case supported the imposition of the penalty.
4. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act Regarding the Burden of Proof:
The tribunal emphasized that under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of proving that the seized goods were not smuggled lies with the appellant. The appellant's inability to produce legal documents or valid explanations for the possession of the goods meant that the burden was not discharged. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods was in accordance with the law.
5. Validity of the Appellant's Confessional Statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The tribunal held that the appellant's confessional statement given on the date of seizure was voluntary and admissible. The statement indicated that the seized currency was the sale proceeds of wrist watches fitted with Swiss movements bought from brokers without bills. The tribunal noted that the belated retraction of the statement was an afterthought and did not affect its admissibility. The tribunal relied on legal precedents to support the admissibility of the statement and its use as evidence of the appellant's guilt.
6. Separate Penalties on the Sole Proprietor and the Proprietary Firm:
The tribunal addressed the issue of imposing separate penalties on the appellant and his proprietary firm. The tribunal noted that the firm had already been penalized to the extent of Rs. 2,500 and that the appellant, being the sole proprietor, should not be penalized separately for the same offence. The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt, but upheld the penalty on the firm.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with the modification that the penalty of Rs. 2,500 imposed on the appellant was set aside. The confiscation of the goods and Indian currency, as well as the penalty on the proprietary firm, were confirmed as per the law.
........
|
9911796707
