|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 288 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 346 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ary to the finding given by the Tribunal in the previous paragraph. We find force in the argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader. In unmistakable terms the Tribunal has found that there were sales transactions and the assesseerespondent had not produced relevant records to satisfy the Tribunal by establishing the case pleaded by him. It is also not in dispute that but for the inspection, the turnover would have escaped assessment, as the responde.0p3nt had not returned the disputed sales transactions in the turnover submitted by him. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the ratio laid down in Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 STC 121 (Mad.) FB will not apply to the facts of this case and the requirement of section 16(2) is satisfied and the levy of penalty is warranted and the Tribunal went wrong in setting aside the levy of penalty. Accordingly, the tax case is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fication did not fix the date from which the exemption was to operate, probably because the Act omitted to make such provision, enabling the State to do so, and the exemption must, therefore, operate for the whole year, during which it was granted. 5.. It will be seen from the passage that in the Act under which the case arose before the Supreme Court there was no provision analogous to the express provision like section 53(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. There is no scope for the argument that the notification without giving any specific date will come into force from the beginning of the financial year. We accept the argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader and hold that the Tribunal went wrong in applying the ratio of the Supreme Court to the facts of this case and particularly in the light of the express provision of section 53(4)(b) of the Act. Accordingly the tax case is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 344 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to convert the land into coffee plantations and cardamom plantations. Such a sale was held to be incidental to the business carried on by the assessee. We have no doubt that that view is the correct view apart from its being a binding view. In the course of the business of establishing a coffee plantation, elimination of standing trees and conversion of those trees to timber and sale of the same would certainly constitute part of the business of establishing a coffee plantation. We have given the example of the oil trader who sells the furniture in order to rationalise the administration of his business which would stand on a totally different footing. Therefore, on facts, the ruling of the Supreme Court is distinguishable to the facts of the assessee-company for the assessment year in which the autorickshaw was sold. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. S.T.R.P. No. 28 of 1985 allowed. S.T.R.P. Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1985 dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 343 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion Bench decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 47 of 1974 (Mishrimal v. State of M.P.) decided on January 11, 1983, wherein proviso to section 33-A of the Act was considered by the court. 7.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It has not been proved in this case by the State that the impugned transfer was effected with the intention to defraud the revenue. It is not, therefore, covered by section 33-A of the Act. Moreover, it is amply proved from the evidence in the case that the transfer was for valuable consideration, which would as such fall within proviso to section 33-A of the Act also. In this appeal, the finding of facts arrived at by the lower courts cannot be allowed to be challenged as the circumstances in which such findings of fact can be challenged are not available in this case. 8.. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 342 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y which pursuant to the covenant in the contract of sale, caused the movements of the goods from Madras to Bombay. But, in the present case, the Bangalore branch was not such a mere intermediary as shown by the facts stated above. Further, it was also noted earlier that the Bangalore branch itself manufactured some goods at its own factory at Bangalore and only in few cases, when it could not produce the goods ordered by their buyers, in the factory at Bangalore branch, it placed orders for the goods to the Madras office. Therefore, the decisions of the Supreme Court turned on its own facts and it cannot be applied to the present case of totally different facts. In the present case, it cannot be said that the contract of sale entered into by the Bangalore branch with the Bangalore buyer caused the movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. 11.. Therefore, T.C. (R) No. 74 of 1981 is also dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, no costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 341 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ating to the purchase aforesaid at the rate mentioned in section 3, 4 or 5, as the case may be, whatever be the quantum of such turnover in a year Provided that a dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a nonresident dealer) purchasing goods the sale of which is liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not be liable to pay tax under this subsection, if his total turnover for a year is less than one lakh rupees. It is not the case of the State that there was any sale of the blue metal jelly to any person beyond the State or any despatch outside the State. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly understood the law and rightly held that all the ingredients of section 7-A are not satisfied in the case of blue metal jelly obtained in the process of crushing of stone boulders and conversion into smaller stones of varying sizes. There is no merit in this tax case. It is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 340 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... year 1983 at this distance of time. It is incomprehensible as to how the Commissioner could levy additional tax by revising the Deputy Commissioner s order dropping the proposed revision in respect of surcharge. Hence the proposal to levy additional tax under section 5-A is beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Commissioner and we declare so. On the merits of the case, viz., whether surcharge is leviable in addition to 4 per cent rate of tax specified in section 5-B, we do not propose to express any opinion at this stage. If there are any further proceedings, it is certainly open to the petitioner to urge before the Commissioner or other authority that the decision of this Court in India Fruits case 1988 68 STC 114, has no application. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and issue a writ of prohibition interdicting the respondent from proceeding further with the impugned revision notice. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 339 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... preparations. Any item of goods, in order to fall under medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations, whether ayurvedic or allopathic must be a separate and identifiable medicinal preparation prepared out of raw materials. A settled principle in the interpretation of an entry in a sales tax law is, it should be given the same meaning which it has at common parlance. Herbs, roots and barks at common parlance are drugs/medicine, but not medicinal preparations. Therefore, we answer the question arising for our consideration thus Herbs, roots and barks of trees cannot be regarded as medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling under entry 41 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 6.. In the light of the above answer, we make the following order (i) Revision petitions are allowed. (ii) The orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and of the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. The order of the assessing authority is restored. Petitions allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 338 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h has been underassessed if assessed or which has been subjected to a lesser rate of tax than what really must have been charged or in case of deduction permitted which in law ought not to have been permitted. Therefore, when a specific provision is made following the earlier provision, the provision subsequently made must lead us to read the intention of the Legislature that they were aware of the provision made in the earlier section and as against that provided under section 12-A to cover the situations mentioned therein other than those covered by section 12(1). Otherwise, if everything is covered by section 12(3) there was no necessity to enact section 12-A. Therefore, we must reject the argument. 18.. In the result, we allow S.T.R.P. No. 23 of 1985 on the ground of being barred by limitation while the remaining revision petitions are dismissed. But in the circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions except S.T.R.P. No. 23 of 1985 dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 337 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ities as also that of the original authority are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the assessing authority for making fresh assessment if the department is in a position to prove that the goods in question had not suffered tax at the hands of M/s. Tread Lines, Belgaum, from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods. 11.. Accordingly, we make the following order (i) The revision petition is allowed. (ii) The assessment order made by the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Belgaum, dated November 15, 1980 (annexure C), the first appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, dated May 25, 1981 (annexure B) and the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated October 29, 1984 (annexure A) are set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Belgaum, leaving liberty for proceeding further, in accordance with law and in the light of this order. Revision petition allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 336 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... costing less than Rs. 150). Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to recover tax in respect of the turnover of Rs. 2,50,609.62 more than Rs. 8,771.31 by way of tax. The assessment order for the year 1981-82 and the consequential demand notice stand modified accordingly. In view of the attitude of the authority in not taking appropriate action when a clerical or arithmetical mistake has been brought to his notice, despite long lapse of time, we are of the view that this is a fit case where exemplary costs should be awarded to the petitioner against the department. We direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner towards costs in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. If the petitioner had paid any tax over and above the amount referred to above, it is open to him to make a representation to the respondent for refund or adjustment of the same towards future tax, as the case may be. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 335 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s a chemical. It suffices for us to proceed on the basis that if the clarification was issued in regard to the sale of lime in favour of a builder or a building contractor the tax should be in accordance with section 5(1) of the Act. Therefore, whether lime was sold or lime mortar was sold, as long as the sale was in favour of the builder, it should be in accordance with the clarification. The exigibility to tax was only at 4 per cent or 5 per cent and not 8 per cent or 10 per cent under entry 79 of the Second Schedule. Therefore, no prejudice had been caused in the light of the clarification to the Revenue. 9.. In that view of the matter the Commissioner had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Act. We, therefore, must interfere with the order which is not in accordance with law. 10.. We quash the said order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as one without jurisdiction and restore the appellate order. Appeal is allowed in terms above. Appeal allowed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 334 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng that though the value of cardboard cartons was separately specified in the sale invoices, it is includible in the turnover, in view of explanation (2)(i) to section 2(xxvii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In this view of the matter, the authorities were justified in bringing to tax the value of the cardboard cartons also and levying the tax at the rate applicable to the goods contained or packed. Reliance placed on section 5(5) of the Act was justified. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. 5.. We should also state that in the decisions relied on by counsel for the assessee, to substantiate his plea claiming exemption, the statutory provisions were entirely different and provisions similar to explanation 2(i) to section 2(xxvii) of the Act read along with rule 9(f) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules did not come up for consideration therein. 6.. The tax revision cases are without merit. They are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 332 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ond the prescribed period. This lacuna should be made good by the State Government by framing appropriate rules prescribing that every appeal presented beyond the period prescribed must be accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay on sufficient cause being shown enabling the appellate authority concerned to entertain the appeal as is done in almost every other judicial proceeding based on the principles underlying section 5 of the Limitation Act. This is to avoid unnecessary hardship to the assessee as well as the department. Such an application supported by affidavit if so prescribed should accompany the memorandum of appeal itself. 5.. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Finance Secretary, Government of Karnataka. 6.. Mr. Gandhi requested for interim stay of the assessment order while the first appellate authority was considering the question of entertaining the appeal beyond the prescribed period of time. We decline to do so. Order accordingly.
-
1990 (10) TMI 331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the comparatively well-to-do sections, entry 24 can be deleted and all milk foods brought under entry 103. Incidentally, condensed milk was also proposed for inclusion under entry 103. Thus, consequent on the deletion of entry 24 and amendment of entry 103, eleven milk foods previously taxed under entry 24 and condensed milk, sold under brand name, registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, would be liable to tax at 8 per cent at the point of first sale in the State, with effect from 1st July, 1983. 11.. We agree with the finding of the Tribunal having regard to the analysis of the various decisions on the aspect to which we have already made reference. Accordingly, the tax case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 12.. To sum up, Writ Petitions Nos. 9079, 11204 and 13828 of 1990 are dismissed. Writ Petition No. 6318 of 1990 is allowed. Tax Case No. 1145 of 1987 filed by the Revenue is also dismissed. We make no order as to costs in any of the cases.
-
1990 (10) TMI 330 - SC ORDER
The assessee-respondent having treated kantan and patti to have been sold incidentally as part of baled cotton the High Court was correct in advising the Sales Tax Tribunal to wipe out the penalty of Rs. 3,500 imposed on the respondent for three assessment years 1967, 1968 and 1969. The order of the High Court was passed way back in the year 1974.
-
1990 (10) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT
Liability to pay purchase tax - Held that:- Appeal allowed. The purchases of raw materials by the assessees are not chargeable to tax either under section 9(1) or section 6 or section 24(3).
-
1990 (10) TMI 325 - SC ORDER
Whether lot cooly charges are collected de hors the sale and such charges do not form part of the turnover - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. High Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Srinivasa Timber Depot v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1968 (10) TMI 100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in holding that the view as has held the field in the State of Tamil Nadu for the last 21 years, which is consistent with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
-
1990 (10) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... liable to be dismissed. 5. emsp We see great force in these submissions. We have carefully perused the records. We find that classification under T.I. 14E was never proposed by the Department at any earlier stage and has been raised for the first time only in the appeal before us. Decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, various High Courts and this Tribunal have taken the view that a new plea cannot be raised at a belated stage as it would cause prejudice to the party against whom it is proposed to be raised and would involve investigation of new facts, which is not permissible at this stage. We therefore hold that the Department cannot agitate the issue of classification under T.I. 14E. No ground has been urged on the question of the respondents rsquo non-eligibility to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 197/82. As a result, nothing survives for determination and the appeal merits rejection. 6. emsp Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
1990 (10) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electrical insulation sheets ... ... ... ... ..... , by production of the classification list by the appellant-Collector, that the subject goods are electrical insulation sheets. 3. emsp While the DR reiterates the grounds put forth in the memorandum of appeal, the respondents (who were not present before us and had furnished written submissions) have relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal - (1) Collector of Central Excise v. Metrowood Engineering Works - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 660 (Trib) (2) Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 775 (Trib) and (3) Wood Polymers Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1990 (47) E.L.T. 595 (Trib). 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions, perused the record and the decisions relied on by the respondents. In all these decisions, it has been held that electrical insulation sheets fell under Heading 8546.00. We see no reason to deviate from these decisions. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
........
|
