|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 284 Records
-
1991 (8) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT
If the dismissal of the employee is illegal, void or inoperative being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of any rules or conditions of service, there is no limitation to bring a suit for declaration that the employee continues to be in service?
Held that:- A suit for declaration by a dismissed employee on the ground that his dismissal is void, is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. A suit for declaration that an order of dismissal or termination from service passed against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Appeal allowed. Set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and dismiss the suit in each case
-
1991 (8) TMI 327 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n. The tax concession is given to a co-operative society and therefore it cannot be said that the grant is not in public interest. 6.. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the S.R.O. does not offend article 304(a) of the Constitution and therefore the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the original petition. 7.. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that the observation in paragraph 12 of the judgment may prejudice the case that the appellants are pursuing in the proceedings initiated under section 45A of the Sales Tax Act. The observations contained in paragraph 12, in our view, does not in any way interfere with the right the appellants are now agitating in the proceeding under section 45A. 8.. Whatever that be we would like to make it clear that the proceedings under section 45A shall be completed uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in paragraph 12 of the judgment. The writ appeal accordingly is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oth as it originally existed and after its amendment, are commercially and popularly understood and it is fairly well-settled that the words and expressions must be construed in the manner in which they are understood in the trade. Considered thus, we are of the view that gas stoves which admittedly are the articles sold by the assessee were brought in for single point taxation at 8 per cent under entry 123 of First Schedule only with effect from April 1, 1987 and prior to that since gas stoves were conspicuous by their absence in entry 123 of First Schedule, they were only exigible to tax at multi-point at 4 per cent. The Joint Commissioner, therefore, fell in error in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 6.. For what we have discussed above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ears to be a case of mutual mistake between the department and the assessee as regards the taxability and the rate of tax, and that being the position, the assessee could not be subjected to penalty where it chose to collect sales tax on the basis of such mutual mistake. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any error whatsoever. In taking this view, we are fortified by the judgment of this High Court in T.C. Nos. 1017 and 1018 of 1984, decided on June 27, 1984, (State of Tamil Nadu v. Sikri and Grower) whereby under somewhat similar circumstances, this Court held that penalty was not imposable on the dealer. We find that the State had filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court in T.C. Nos. 1017 and 1018 of 1984, and that S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 8067 and 8068 of 1985 were dismissed by the Supreme Court. 3.. The revision filed by the Revenue, therefore, fails, and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 324 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... may be. 8.. In the circumstances, orders rejecting the applications of the petitioner for exemption from paying sales tax both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act to avail of the benefits in the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989 of the State, are quashed. The Sales Tax Officer is directed to reconsider the applications afresh after giving the petitioner opportunity of removing the defects as are pointed out by him. 9.. Mr. A. Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel (S.T.) stated that Sales Tax Officer have some difficulty in view of the language of the notification and he would request the Commissioner to instruct the Sales Tax Officer so that in respect of the medium scale industries and large scale industries, certificates of Director of Industries on the basis of the certificate granted by the Central Government would be accepted. 10.. In the result, writ applications are allowed. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 323 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spectively, so as to increase the rate of tax retrospectively. In Mohd. Swallehin v. Lt. Governor, Delhi AIR 1977 Delhi 184, it was held that section 21 of General Clauses Act gives power to the Government to issue or to rescind the notification which can have effect from the date of its publication in the Gazette. This power does not include a power to rescind the notification with retrospective effect. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the notification dated September 10, 1987, cannot be made effective retrospectively from March 5, 1987, but can be made effective only from the date of its publication in the Rajasthan Gazette. Therefore, clause 6 of notification dated September 10, 1987, which makes the same effective retrospectively from March 5, 1987, is struck down. 11.. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of striking down clause 6 of notification dated September 10, 1987, with no order as to costs. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 322 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... respect of which it had enjoyed tax holiday, it cannot be held that this is a second unit of the said firm. It is clearly a new unit in terms of the provisions of the relevant notification as the applicant as an individual is a legal entity and a dealer different from the company of which he is a director. The ground, therefore, is not sustainable. 12.. In view of these reasons, the applicant is entitled to the grant of eligibility certificate. The impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner are, therefore, set aside, with the direction upon the Assistant Commissioner to issue eligibility certificate to the applicant. Interim order is vacated and the assessment for the period February 18, 1986 to June 30, 1986, if made, should be revised in terms of this order. 13.. In the result, the application is allowed on contest. There will be no order for costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 321 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... so, the Board s order will be proper. We do not propose to give any judgment on the facts ourselves. It would be fit and proper that a fresh look is given by the Board (officer now designated under the amended law) to the facts of this case and adequate opportunity is afforded to the petitioner before any order reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is passed. 23.. Except the contentions above confined to the export and import sales, no other contentions have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 24.. For the reasons stated above, tax cases in T.C. Nos. 494 to 497 of 1979, 563 and 564 of 1980 and 438 of 1981 are dismissed but without costs. T.C. No. 439 of 1981 is allowed. The case of the petitioner therein is remitted to the Board (the officer now designated to revise an order suo motu under section 34 of the State Act) for a rehearing in the light of the observations made above and disposal in accordance with law. No costs.
-
1991 (8) TMI 320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s specie . The Supreme Court takes the issue beyond any controversy by observing that ornaments and other articles of gold purchased by the assessee with a view to melting them and making new ornaments, or other articles out of melted golds would not fall within the words of bullion and specie . The findings of both the authorities below is that the assessee purchased old jewellery or worn out jewellery. The only question is whether it will come under the entry 15 of the First Schedule bullion and specie . If it does not come within the said entry necessarily it has to be taxed under the general rate provided by section 3(l) of the Act. This is precisely what has been done by the Tribunal, while allowing the enhancement petition. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal while allowing the enhancement petition. 9.. Consequently all the points raised by the assessee are rejected. The tax case (revision) fails and is dismissed but without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 319 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d papers, in our opinion, no commercially different commodity came into existence. Where there is no essential difference in identity between the original and the processed product, it is not possible to say that the original product had been consumed in the manufacture of the processed product. The finding of the Tribunal that by melting waste polythene bags and papers no new product had emerged to attract the provisions of section 7-A of the Act is, therefore, fully justified. Since, we are upholding the finding of the Tribunal in that behalf, the next finding of the Tribunal in deleting the addition of 2 per cent for the defects noticed to the taxable turnover cannot also be found fault with. Consequently, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case in which any interference is called for at our hands in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 4.. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1991 holding that lime shell and lime powder, which is manufactured by burning the lime shell, are two distinct and separate commodities, and so far as lime shell is concerned, it would attract the provisions of section 7-A of the Act. Reported as Decan Limeshell and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu in 1992 87 STC 29 (Mad.). 5.. Considering this position, we are satisfied that the Tribunal fell in error by holding that section 7-A was not attracted so far as the tin sheets are concerned. The finding that the tin sheets could not be said to have been consumed in the process of manufacture of tin containers which are distinct and separate commodities, is clearly erroneous. The order of the Tribunal, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. 6.. The tax revision case accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the assessing authority restored. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 317 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nished, the Entertainment Tax Officer shall grant the proprietor a permit in form IV. Then only the proprietor will be liable to pay the tax under section 5 of the Act. The procedure prescribed under rule 27 has not been followed by the Entertainment Tax Officer and there is no dispute that in the instant case, he has not issued any permit in form IV. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in stating that he is liable to pay tax only under section 4 of the Act. 4.. In view of that legal position, we hold that the respondent has no power to demand tax from the petitioner for the period August 27, 1984 to September 6, 1984 and October 26, 1984 to March 31, 1985 on the basis of the petitioner s statement dated April 14, 1984 without following the prescribed procedure under section 5 of the Act. 5.. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 316 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bunal. In absolutely identical facts, the petitioner was held entitled to the refund of tax and the statutory interest accrued thereon. In view of what has been stated above, it is not necessary to go into other contentions raised by Mr. Sawhney and in particular constitutional validity of section 44 of the Act. The petitioner is entitled to the refund of tax and the statutory interest. If and when the rectification is allowed, the authorities can claim it back in accordance with law. This petition is, thus, allowed and the respondents are directed to refund Rs. 16,61,802.80 forthwith. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest worked out at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the first month when the amount became due to be paid, i.e., from the date when the respondents allowed the appeal of the petitioner and at the rate of 18 per cent per annum thereafter. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 315 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act would not apply and the tax paid thereon was liable to be refunded. In the facts situation that we have noticed in the opening part of this judgment, the conclusion is irresistible that it was not a case of sales return, but of unfructified sale, and, therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the assessing authority fell in error in holding the claim to be time-barred by invoking the provisions of section 13(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Those provisions, as already noticed, have no application to this case. 5.. In view of the above discussion and the facts situation as noticed above, the view of the Tribunal that no sales took place to attract tax and that the transaction was only a case of unfructified sale is unexceptionable. We do not find any error to have been committed by the Tribunal. Consequently, this tax revision fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that oil 666 was nothing but lubricating oil and covered by entry 47 of the First Schedule to the Act is wholly justified. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly fell in error in treating oil 666 as taxable at 4 per cent multi-point without considering the physical and chemical properties of the oil and also as to how it is understood in common parlance and by the trade in general. Entry 47 of the First Schedule at the relevant time read lubricating oils and greases and from August 15, 1974, the rate of tax was 8 per cent at the point of first sale in the State. Since oil 666 is a lubricating oil, it is covered by the entry as it existed at the relevant time and the Joint Commissioner rightly found so. No error is therefore found in the order of the Joint Commissioner which is based on proper appreciation of the materials on record and correct application of the entry in the First Schedule. The tax appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 313 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d where admittedly the business had not even been started. It bears repetition that, in the facts of the present case, the liability to pay tax commenced with effect from November -2, 1989. It is inconceivable that either section 26 or rule 39-A(8) intended to extend the liability prior to November 2, 1989. It is not necessary to deal with the larger question whether rule 39-A(8) is ultra vires or not, especially as no such difficulty is likely to arise because of the insertion of the proviso to sub-rule (8). Learned counsel appearing for the State was unable to justify how tax could be levied for period prior to November 2, 1989. We accordingly allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner is not liable to pay sales tax prior to November 2, 1989. The tax already paid by him under protest shall be suitably adjusted for the period for which he is liable to pay tax in the light of the above order. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 312 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... manner in which they are understood in the trade. No aid can, therefore, be available from the publications of the Indian Standards Institute as to what pesticides are. Even the certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University to say that pesticides would include fungicides cannot advance the case of the appellant because, the Legislature in its supreme wisdom, brought fungicides to be included in entry 66 for the first time only by amending Act 7 of 1977 with effect from September 13, 1977. 8.. The Joint Commissioner was, therefore, justified in confirming the proposal and holding that Gramoxone , at the relevant time, was liable to tax at 4 per cent multi-point and was not covered by entry 66 of the First Schedule and, therefore, he rightly set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority. This appeal, therefore, merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 311 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ture has intended to do so, it has either included or excluded the item and has used the words in all its form or excluding . At any rate, so far as the fine-flour, maida and suji are concerned, even if we go by rule of common parlance, it cannot be said that they continue to be wheat. If a customer goes to purchase wheat he will not certainly purchase maida or suji . 15.. We are therefore of the opinion that flour, fine-flour (atta, maida and suji) are not included in the term wheat as used in clause (i)(iii) of section 14 of the CST Act and the restrictions imposed under section 15 of the CST Act do not apply and the notification dated June 27, 1990, cannot be said to contravene the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act. With due respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Patna and Karnataka High Courts. 16.. Consequently, we find no merit in any of these writ petitions. They are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 310 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earned counsel for the appellant, faced with this situation, pleaded for reduction in the amount of penalty. In the facts and circumstances of the case we cannot agree. The appellant has retained the amount collected in contravention of section 22(1) of the Act till date with him. There is no justification therefore, even to reduce the quantum of penalty particularly when we find that the assessee knowingly retained the amount which had been collected in contravention of section 22(1) of the Act. The mere use of the expression recoupment of sales tax in the bills undoubtedly shows that it was a clever device on the part of the assessee to escape from the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act. The assessee knowingly had collected what he was not authorised by the law to collect and, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the quantum of penalty either. Consequently tile appeal fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (8) TMI 309 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal had no jurisdiction to rehear the appeals thereby impliedly refusing to rectify the mistake apparent on the record. In fact, there is no question of rehearing the appeals. The only question is of rectification of the mistake of law which is apparent on the record. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under section 21-A of the Act and rectify the mistake of law apparent on the face of the record in accordance with law. In view of the foregoing discussion, the answer to this question is also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the order passed by Shri I.C. Puri, Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, dated August 12, 1975, suffered from the vice of mistake of law apparent on the record needing rectification. Thus the questions referred to this Court are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. References answered in the affirmative.
........
|
