|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 810 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner and the Deputy Commissioner has not yet accorded such permission, that circumstance itself cannot be a valid ground that can be put forth against the petitioner who is entitled to seek refund in terms of the order made by the respondent himself on 7-7-1997 read with Section 33-F of the APGST Act. 9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition. A direction shall issue to the respondent to refund the excess tax collected from the petitioner for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest calculated at the rate of 12 per annum on the amount of refund with effect from 7-1-1988 till the payment is made. The petitioner is entitled to costs of this writ petition quantified at ₹ 3,000/- payable within two weeks. The cost may be paid to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, it is open to the State to recover the cost from the salary of respondent.
-
2001 (6) TMI 809 - CEGAT TAMIL NADU
... ...
... ... ..... duty at the normal rate on the value in excess of the concession limit of ₹ 75 lakhs. Therefore, the duty paid on the value of ₹ 9,80,000/- (Rs. 84,80,000/- (-) ₹ 75,00,000/-) only which is in excess of eligible concession limit of ₹ 75 lakhs is in order, since the respondents still had ₹ 23,50,000/- to cross the limit of ₹ 75 lakhs. 3. Heard Ld. SDR. 4. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal as rendered in the case of CCE Madras Vs. Helios Antennas & Electronics (supra), is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be rejected. Respectfully following the above judgment rendered by the CEGAT Court No. II, New Delhi, we confirm the order of the original authority and the lower appellate authority and reject the appeal filed by Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (Pronounced & dictated in open court)
-
2001 (6) TMI 808 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appended to section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 5.. Before concluding a decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us be noted. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Asia Pacific Investments Trusts Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition 1996 (4) ALD 293. The said judgment will no way advance the case of the petitioner, for nothing is placed before us to show that the petitioner is the owner of the subject motor vehicle. Even in the registration certificate produced at page No. 10 of the material papers, nowhere the name of the petitioner is mentioned against the column name of the registered owner . Only the name of the second respondent is mentioned against the said column. 6.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 807 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re, therefore, left with no alternative but to direct the first respondent to give effect to the Tribunal s order dated April 12, 1994 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order together with interest as per section 33-E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. This writ petition is accordingly hereby disposed of. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500 by way of costs to the petitioner. 10.. As could be seen from the above order, the question that arise for decision in the present case did not arise in that case and secondly, the court too did not advert to any of the relevant G.Os. There is absolutely no ratio decidendi in the said judgment. As quite often said and reiterated, the relief granted by a court in a legal action is not the ratio decidendi ratio decidendi is the rationale of the decision. 11. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 806 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ferred to in section 15(d), is not regarded by the Act as one and the same commodity. 8.. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. O.P. Aliyar 1992 87 STC 339 (Mad.), but this judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case as there were no two separate entries for bigger stones and smaller stones. Had there been only one entry in the Schedule I of the APGST Act, perhaps there would have been no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners but since there are two different entries for raw granite stone and polished granite stone the judgment will not come to their rescue. The Karnataka High Court judgment in Poonam Stone Processing Industries v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Gulbarga 1994 94 STC 183 would also not apply to the facts of the present case for the reasons given hereinabove. 9.. For the reasons given above, we dismiss the writ petitions. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 805 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of selling the gold pledged is basically for the purpose of a banking activity and is for securing the Bank s own advanced amounts. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the sale as defined in the Act is not mere transfer of property or goods by one person to another person, this could be sale for the purposes of sales tax if it is in the course of trade or business. Therefore, we are of the view that the transactions in question are not amenable to the sales tax. There is another judgment from Kerala High Court which is directly on the point being Lord Krishna Bank Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment I), Sales Tax Office, Special Circle, Trichur 1999 114 STC 333. 9.. For these reasons, we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned notices and hold that the banks or banking companies are not amenable to sales tax on sale of gold or ornaments pledged to it as security for loan. No costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 804 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fresh notice proposing to include the excise duty paid in the turnover for the relevant year. Thereafter the assessee again moved the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the matter went again before the Supreme Court. In this judgment McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer 1985 59 STC 277 the Supreme Court was clearly of the view that the excise duty was part of the turnover. 7.. In the present case it is on record that the duty paid under Textiles Committee Act has been passed on to the consumers and in terms of section 2(1)(s) of the Sales Tax Act the duty paid is part of the turnover. Therefore, following the judgment of the Supreme Court, we hold that the cess paid under the Textiles Committee Act being in the nature of excise duty is part of the turnover for the purposes of sales tax and we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. The tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 803 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on at this stage. The petitioner then filed a revision (exhibit P9) before the Board of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram. The third respondent has also rejected another request for issuance of a certificate for deduction of tax made in exhibit P13 by exhibit P14 communications. 36.. In all the aforesaid proceedings, viz., exhibits P4, P6, P8 and P14 the question involved is as to whether the transactions referred to are inter-State sales liable to be exempted under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or not. This is in realm of disputed questions of fact and law which cannot be resolved in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their respective costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 276366 of 2000 in O.P. No. 16836 of 2000 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 802 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion with reference to the members of the armed forces, we are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel that the members of the petitioners are entitled for any exemption. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not bring to our notice any provision in the present Act similar to section 27A of the Maharashtra Act. In the absence of any such provision, the said judgment of the Mumbai High Court is of no assistance to the petitioners. The learned counsel also contended that under regulation 288A the loss on account of the exemption granted in respect of the mem bers of the petitioners would be reimbursed. Therefore, there is no loss either to the State Government or the local authorities. We do not find any merit in this contention also as there is no reference under the regulations to the present Act. 13.. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 801 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed in respect of an advantage sought and received. 14.. There is no material placed before the court in this case to show that the luxury tax is imposed as a charge for a convenience or service provided by the State on those who choose to avail the service or convenience. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned tax cannot be described as regulatory or compensatory in nature. 15.. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the impugned provisions under section 4A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 and Schedule thereto as amended by the Kerala Finance Bill, 1994 are unconstitutional being violative of article 301 of the Constitution even though the contention against the legislative competence has to be rejected. In the result, all the four writ appeals stand dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4053 of 1997 in W.A. No. 1510 of 1997-A dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4054 of 1997 in W.A. No. 1511 of 1997-B dismissed. Writ appeals dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 800 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proper to fix the quantum of suppression as fixed by the appellate authority. If the accounts are not accepted, a best judgment assessment has to be passed. When it is found that there is variation in stock, etc., it is possible for the officer to make the respective additions to the turnover on the ground that there was suppression. But, when it is found that the suppression was only for a limited period, it cannot be assumed that the suppression existed for a long period. This Court has said that there can be a best judgment assessment if a pattern of suppression is found. No pattern of suppression is found in this case. Hence, we are of the view that the assessing authority was entitled to add only the actual suppression found for the period from April 1, 1991 to August 23, 1991. In the above view of the matter, the tax revision case is disposed of, modifying the order of the Tribunal. Order on C.M.P. No. 2634 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 179 of 2000 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 799 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been taxed at 4 per cent under the said entry and is also the subjectmatter of Commissioner s clarification No. 449/89-90 dated November 2, 1989. It is true that all clarifications issued up to May 28, 1996 have been withdrawn prospectively as per circular dated February 26, 1997. But, nevertheless, as observed by a division Bench of this Court in Subhash Marketing v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka 2000 118 STC 136 any clarification in favour of the assessee cannot be ignored, for assessments, during the period when such clarification was in effect. Be that as it may. 12.. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed in part and annexures A to E dated February 5, 2001 proposing to tax M.S. flanges under entry 6 of Part P of the Second Schedule are quashed. This will not come in the way of the assessing authority sending fresh proposition notices, if he finds that mild steel flanges are required to be taxed under some other entry. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 798 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate order was in force till exhibit P4 order was passed on April 3, 1993. Till exhibit P4 was passed only demand payable was exhibit P3 demand consequent of exhibit P2 appellate order. There was no other valid demand over and above exhibit P3 after exhibit P2. Therefore, for that period, no penal interest is payable if amount demanded in exhibit P3 is paid as demanded. From the date of exhibit P4, the actual tax payable by the assessee was the amount mentioned in exhibit P3 till exhibit P4 and if that amount is not paid, penal interest is payable on that amount till exhibit P4. But, for the period after exhibit P4 is passed, petitioner is liable to pay penal interest on the basis of the entire balance tax payable till it is paid. 4.. In the above circumstances, exhibit P5 is set aside and the Sales Tax Officer is directed to make fresh demand on the basis of the principles mentioned above. Order on C.M.P. No. 4011 of 1995 in O.P. No. 2211 of 1995 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 797 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ings sheet with reference to the issue of notices as well as collection of tax also supports the view, which we have already taken. 10.. Under the above circumstances, the impugned action of the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to refund the amount of tax and the penalty collected from the first petitioner. This, however, does not preclude the respondent, if the respondent proposed to conduct necessary enquiry as to the contentions of the petitioners and decide the matter afresh. It is also open to the respondent to refer the matter to the concerned authority, having jurisdiction over the second petitioner, so as to have a comprehensive enquiry into the matter and for appropriate action. 11.. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 2,000 payable within three weeks from today, which is directed to be recovered from the Officer, who has framed the assessment against the first petitioner on October 17, 1996. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 796 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing such affidavits. 10.. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the petitions to condone the delay. The order of the Tribunal refusing to condone the delay and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeals are set aside. The appeals are restored to file. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeals on merits after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce any documentary evidence or bring to the notice of the Tribunal any new facts. T.R.Cs. are allowed. Order in C.M.P. No. 1431 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 92 of 2001 dismissed. Order in C.M.P. No. 1549 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 103 of 2001 dismissed. Order in C.M.P. No. 1552 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 104 of 2001 dismissed. Order in C.M.P. No. 1554 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 105 of 2001 dismissed. Order in C.M.P. No. 1660 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 115 of 2001 dismissed. Order in C.M.P. No. 1995 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 151 of 2001 dismissed. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 795 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tors was quashed. 7.. From the counter filed before us by the respondents, it is seen from para 3 thereof that the second respondent has not yet attached the personal properties of the petitioner. However, it is stated in para 3 of the counter that if the petitioner does not clear outstanding balance on behalf of the company from the assets of the company together with penal interest under section 16(3) of the APGST Act, the respondent would not be having any option except to proceed against the petitioner personally in accordance with law. 8.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned notice issued by the second respondent is one without authority of law and consequently invalid. Since M/s. Maddi Swarna Agro Enterprises is not in liquidation and is not yet wound up, the second respondent invoking his power under section 16B of the APGST Act does not arise. In the result we allow the writ petition with no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 794 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the contention of the petitioner that there is no sale or deemed sale in respect of the metal used in laying the road on the premise that the contractee continues to be the owner. To illustrate otherwise also, in this type of works contract, the Government departments used to supply steel, cement, etc., even in respect of those items supplied, the ownership continued to be with the contractee, but still when those items are utilised by the contractor while execution of the works contract, they were treated as sales and the value of the above items are deducted from the bills. Even under such circumstances also it was held that the contractor is liable to tax, as there was a deemed sale while executing the works contract. 9.. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, the tax revision cases as well as the writ petitions are dismissed, but under the circumstances there is no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 793 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t framed by the Commercial Tax Officer after the remand made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The assessments framed are independent assessments, framed after appreciating the evidence that was produced before the assessing officer and not giving effect to any of the directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The direction if at all given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was only to give opportunity to the assessee/dealer for producing evidence to prove its case. Therefore, there were no fetters on the powers of the assessing officer to be exercised while framing the assessment after remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. There is absolutely no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order framed by the Commercial Tax Officer, dated January 3, 1995. 11.. Under the above circumstances, all the tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 792 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... date specified in the final eligibility certificate, they may pass on the same to the General Manager who is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner. The first respondent without resorting to such lawful procedure and method high-handedly cannot coerce the petitioner to pay the tax ignoring the final eligibility certificate. 3.. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent not to coerce the petitioner to pay the tax so long as the final eligibility certificate issued by the General Manager, dated November 3, 1997 is not cancelled or modified by him. 4.. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested the court to issue a direction to the first respondent to return the tax collected by him, we think the appropriate procedure for the petitioner is to make necessary application in terms of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act before the first respondent and seek refund. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 791 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the second limb of section 17-A of the Act would become totally superfluous and unnecessary and such an interpretation is totally impermissible. Added to this, it is relevant to note that the words any proceeding occurring in section 17-A of the Act are not qualified by any preceding or succeeding words. Under these circumstances, these words should be given full meaning and content and if they are so given, understood and interpreted, the words any proceeding would include assessment proceedings also. In the instant case, admittedly assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing show cause notices which were served on the dealer on July 23, 1996 and January 4, 1996 well before the execution of the sale deeds on August 2, 1996. 14.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
........
|
