|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 131 Records
-
1976 (9) TMI 169 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 4 occurs, is to show that some precision has been attempted in making the entries. When it was intended to confine the entry to particular gadgets and parts thereof the entry said so. Of course, even where an entry relates to parts manufactured for use for a particular kind of instrument or gadget only, the article, manufactured to serve as a part of a particular kind of apparatus, would not cease to be covered by the intended entry simply because a purchaser makes some other use of it. We have to find the intention of the framers of the schedule in making the entry in each case. The best guide to their intentions is the language actually employed by them. Having regard to the intention of the framers of entry No. 1 and in view of the discussion above, we hold fare meters are the accessories of the motors and auto-rickshaws. The tax revision cases therefore merit dismissal and, accordingly, they are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 168 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes and upheld the order of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes. But by doing that the Board has purported to enhance the tax liability of the dealer which, as we have held, the Board has no jurisdiction to do. That being the position, in the instant case, if the Board deemed it necessary, it could have remanded the appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law drawing particular attention of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes to the provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. In the result, we quash the impugned order dated 10th August, 1972, passed by the Board of Revenue and remand the appeal to the Board for disposal of the same in accordance with law. The petition is allowed as indicated above and the case is remanded. We, however, make no order as to costs. SADANANDASWAMY, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated 23rd September, 1976, is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly so done. Now the question for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the turnover in question was not liable to be included in the taxable turnover. There is no evidence whatever to show that the property in the goods in the present case passed after the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India, as construed by the Supreme Court in the decision(2) referred to above. Once the assessee was not able to prove that the property in the goods passed after the goods crossed the customs frontiers of India, it must necessarily follow that the turnover was liable to be included in the taxable turnover. Accordingly we allow T. C. No. 120 of 1972 and hold that the turnover of Rs. 37,669.18 representing the sales effected by the respondent herein in favour of V. Srinivas and Company was liable to be included in the taxable turnover. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 166 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... b) and by sheer negligence and dereliction in duty, the position would be taken to have been finally determined against the assessee. When an application is made as required under the law, the obvious intention of the rule is that the public officer charged with the duty of entertaining the application has to allow it and that too in such a way that the assessee has not to suffer. 7.. In case, there has been an application on 20th April, 1968, and the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, comes to hold that this has not been allowed, we would require the Additional Tribunal to proceed on the footing that the same has been allowed. Our view receives support from the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1954 25 I.T.R. 90., under one of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 8.. The reference is accordingly disposed of. We make no order as to costs. PANDA, J.-I agree. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1976 (9) TMI 165 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of the definition makes it clear that any sum charged or anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods except the named items would be sale price . In view of the frank concession of Mr. Mohanti that octroi would not be covered by any of the three named items for the purpose of exclusion, octroi must certainly be included in sale price . We see no justification for the view taken by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, that if separately charged, octroi would be outside the ambit of the definition of sale price . 4.. The two questions referred are indeed one and the question is, whether octroi when separately charged by the dealer would be a part of sale price . Our answer, for the reasons indicated, is against the assessee, i.e., octroi would not be exempted from taxation under the Orissa Sales Tax Act merely because it has been separately charged at the point of sale by the dealer. We make no order for costs. PANDA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (9) TMI 164 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he sale of goods and completion of the agreement by passing of title in the very goods contracted to be sold. Ultimately, the true effect of an accretion made pursuant to a contract has to be Judged, not by an artificial rule that the accretion may be presumed to have become by virtue of affixing to a chattel, part of that chattel, but from the intention of the parties to the contract see Patnaik and Co. v. State of Orissa 1965 16 S.T.C. 364 (S.C.) 1965 2 S.C.R. 782. Considering the materials on record the Board has found that there were no sales involved in the transactions in the instant cases and, therefore, no tax is leviable under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. In the result, we find that in any view of the matter there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Board of Revenue in our writ jurisdiction. The petitions are accordingly rejected. The rules are discharged. We, however, make no order as to costs. SADANANDASWAMY, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... comprehensive entry. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the basis of the judgment of this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. East India Rubber Works, Madras 1974 33 S.T.C. 399., contended that on the analogy of this court holding in that case that P.V.C. cloth would not fall within the scope of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, we must hold in this case also that the calico or bookbinding cloth will not fall within the scope of the said entry. We are unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that no materials were placed before the Tribunal for the purpose of showing that bookbinding cloth is the result of such an elaborate process so as to make it a different commodity with different properties and characteristics. Under these circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the tax revision case fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed
-
1976 (9) TMI 162 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o admit his liability in the memorandum of appeal, whatever his stand might have been before the assessing authority. Ordinarily, no interpretation should be placed on a provision which would have the effect of making the provision either otiose or a dead letter. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court, the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is clearly unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Commissioner and against the assessee. Our answer to the question is as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi, was not right in holding that the requirements of section 9 had been complied with by the assessee, who had not deposited the tax on the turnover as disclosed by him before the assessing authority. As nobody has appeared for the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1976 (9) TMI 161 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to him by the Assistant Commissioner. Under these circumstances, even though retrospective effect has been given to the amendment to section 6 by the Andhra Pradesh Act No. 4 of 1974, it cannot be said that there was any illegality or there was any irregularity so far as the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was concerned. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate revision proceedings against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer passed on 30th June, 1972. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, quash and set aside the notice dated 5th March, 1975, which has been impugned in the present proceedings, and issue a writ restraining the first respondent herein from acting in pursuance of the said notice or entertaining any revision proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in respect of this disputed item. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above with costs. Adovcate s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 160 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sita Ram Ayodhya Prasad, Foodgrains Dealer, Moradabad1973 U.P.T.C. 332. But there being no specific notification for oil-seed or gur they shall be liable to tax as the turnover of notified goods is above the taxable limit. This shall demonstrate that for determining the minimum taxable limit what has to be taken into account is the total of all the purchases of notified goods made by a dealer. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is not correct. In view of what we have stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative in favour of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and against the assessee. The answer to the question referred is as follows In the facts and circumstances of the case, the purchase turnover of gur amounting to Rs. 1,000 would not be exempt from tax. As nobody has appeared for the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1976 (9) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... how that it is only the sales by hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries which are selling medicines to their patients only, that are covered by the terms of the Government Order and if such hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries sell medicines to others in addition to or independent of their patients, such cases will not come within the scope of the Government Order. In this case, it was found and was established that the assessee had been selling his medicines, etc., to strangers in addition to his patients. Consequently, the case of the assessee does not fall within the scope of the Government Order. The Tribunal itself in its order has pointed out that the assessee had not questioned the quantum of the turnover determined by the assessing authorities before it. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is valid in law and hence these tax revision cases fail and are dismissed with costs of the respondent. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 one set. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 158 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... u General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and, therefore, were eligible for the concessional rate of 1 per cent of the tax and, consequently, the reopening of the assessment for the purpose of assessing the turnover referable to the same at 2 per cent was erroneous. It was also pointed out by the Tribunal that the Government had exempted the sales of these items from tax for the period from 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1970, but declined to grant such exemption for the year 1964-65. We are of the opinion that the grant of, or refusal to grant, exemption from tax by the Government in respect of sales of these items has no bearing on the question whether these items fall or do not fall within the scope of the proviso to section 3(1) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the tax revision case is allowed and the revision made by the assessing officer as confirmed by the appellate authorities is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 157 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y said so. I am, therefore, unable to say that the expression motor vehicles includes its component parts such as bus bodies. In fact this had been the view of the department itself until very recently as may be seen from the instructions issued by the Government on 9th September, 1964, according to which, sales tax had to be charged at the general rate of 6 per cent and not at the special rate of 10 per cent. It is only recently that these instructions have been modified and fresh instructions issued on 8th October, 1974. Bus bodies have now been instructed to be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. Even this was done because of an objection raised by the audit party of the office of the Accountant-General, Haryana. I, therefore, hold that bus bodies on motor chassis are not liable to be taxed as if they fall within entry 1 of Schedule A. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 4th May, 1976, of the Excise and Taxation Officer is quashed. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 156 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aborate machinery for its assessment. When all these provisions are read together it cannot be said that the grant of power to a State Government to select commodities upon which tax may be levied is either arbitrary or constitutes excessive delegation. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, DelhiA.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1232., it was held as under What guidance should be given and to what extent and whether guidance has been given in a particular case at all depends on a consideration of the provisions of the particular Act with which the court has to deal including its preamble. Further it appears to us that the nature of the body to which delegation is made is also a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether there is sufficient guidance in the matter of delegation. These observations apply to the instant case with full vigour. For the reasons mentioned above, I order that these petitions be dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 155 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) of section 15-A of the Act. Hence such reduction of penalty by him is also unsustainable. For the foregoing reasons, we answer both the questions in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and our answers are as follows (1) The revising authority was not justified in holding that for determining the quantum of penalty under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, only the turnover which had been concealed in the account books should be taken into consideration the assessing authority should determine what would have been the tax that would have escaped assessment had the turnover as shown in the return been accepted and 1 frac12 times of the said amount would be the maximum limit within which penalty can be imposed. (2) The revising authority was not justified in reducing the amount of penalty to Rs. 150. As the assessee is absent and unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (9) TMI 154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urwath Damodaran did not have a place of business in the State when he sold the paper and paper boards in Tamil Nadu State and, consequently, he cannot be held liable to sales tax on the turnover relating to the sale of paper and paper boards in the State. It is not necessary for us to consider the correctness or otherwise of this contention, because such a contention was not advanced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, therefore, had no occasion to consider the same. It is not as if the question is a pure question of law because this will involve an investigation into as to whether the late Kurwath Damodaran had a place of business in Tamil Nadu State or not. Under these circumstances, the tax revision petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the assessment on the turnover of Rs. 49,358.57 at 2 frac12 per cent made by the assessing authority as confirmed by the appellate authority is restored. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 153 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rics within the meaning of entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and, therefore, to be exempt from sales tax by virtue of rule 3(28) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. A learned single Judge of the said court held that mere cutting into shorter length and stitching the end by themselves did not result in a new product. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge. 6.. Our answer to the questions are (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, mill-made cloth when cut into pieces and stitched into sizes of bed sheets, napkins and towels continue to be mill-made fabrics within the meaning of serial No. 33 of the list of tax-free goods and, therefore, sale thereof would be exempt from tax. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, sale of pillow covers is exigible to sales tax not being covered by the aforesaid entry. We make no order for costs of these references. PANDA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (9) TMI 152 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... higher turnover should be estimated by the assessing authority must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The revising authority has set out circumstances which, according to it, would show that the intra-State and inter-State turnovers returned by the assessee could be accepted as reasonable. Hence it cannot be said that the revising authority should not have accepted the turnovers returned by the assessee. As a result of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us, in each of these cases, is against the revenue and in favour of the assessee and is as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the assessee s books of account were rejected, the turnover, as returned by the assessee, need not necessarily have been rejected but could be accepted if it appeared to be reasonable and proper. As the assessee is absent and unrepresented we make no order as to costs in these two references. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (9) TMI 151 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e order. The facts, which would lead to such an inference, are not before us. Since there is no material available to us, it is not possible to say that there is unreasonable delay on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in communicating his order dated 17th November, 1973, and the third contention of Mr. S. Dasaratharama Reddi also fails. Since each of the three contentions urged by Mr. S. Dasaratharama Reddi fails, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Writ Petitions Nos. 702 and 1831 of 1975. The contentions urged in each of these two writ petitions are on the same lines as the first two contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1806 of 1975. By our judgment in W.P. No. 1806 of 1975, we have rejected each of those two contentions for the reasons recorded in the judgment. These two writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged in each of these three writ petitions. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (9) TMI 150 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sioner in his order dated 22nd July, 1970, had directed an enquiry as to what part of the turnover of groundnut relates to groundnut sold and what part of the turnover of groundnut represents groundnut crushed for manufacturing oil. In view of the Bench decision and also in view of the remand order which has become final and was binding on the Commercial Tax Officer, the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 16th September, 1972, and that of the Assistant Commissioner dated 17th November, 1973, cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. The Commercial Tax Officer is directed to take up proceedings in accordance with the remand order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22nd July, 1970, and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce such records as he deems fit, proceed to assess the tax liability of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
........
|
