|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 288 Records
-
1993 (10) TMI 334 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a case of exemption from tax generally. 5.. The notification of the exemption in the instant case was issued under section 3B of the Act. This provision contemplates exemption for a dealer in respect of sales of goods produced by him in new industrial unit for a period of five years. Neither the notification nor section 3B of the Act makes the exemption depend upon any particular circumstances or specific condition. The goods produced in all industrial units are not exempt goods produced only in new industrial units during the particular time are exempt. So far as those goods are concerned, the exemption is total. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the petitioner that this is a case where the sale of goods is exempt from tax generally. He is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of section 8(2-A) of the Central Act. 6.. We, therefore, quash annexure IV order dated May 21, 1993. The writ petition is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 333 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he cycle. In the present case, the work of attachment of compressor is of temporary nature and for a particular job. The compressor is being used only for the purposes of boring in the well and the nuts and bolts, by which attachment is being done, keep the compressor attached with the tractor. When the work is over, the tractor is being taken for other use. The identity and character of the tractor is not lost and so is the position of the compressor. The two items have been shown separately in the bills, which also show that there was an agreement with the buyer to purchase these two items. Since no manufacturing process was involved, there was no justification in initiating reassessment proceedings. The Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that no extra tax is leviable on the tractor which is joint with the compressor as no new marketable commodity has come into existence. The revision petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 332 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... If on the other hand, it is found that in fact it was a sale of cement as well as sale of bags, sales tax would be charged on the sale of cement at the rate of 12 per cent on the price of cement and 4 per cent on the price of bags. It is for the authorities under the statute to decide such questions of fact on the material produced and the intention of the parties in completing the transaction of sale. Once such intention is established, it would be immaterial if the same was intended to be covered up. The effect of repeal of proviso (vii) of section 15 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act would be that if the articles sold, or intended to be sold, were two separately, i.e., cement as well as bags, the same would be charged to sales tax at the rate of 12 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. Thus holding as above, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of appeal under the Act. All the three writ petitions stand disposed of as above. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (10) TMI 331 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... expressed about Murli Manohar s case 1991 80 STC 79 1991 1 SCC 377. Ultimately, for the reasons given, their Lordships held the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions to be intra vires. We have held that Goodyear s case 1990 76 STC 71 (SC) is distinguishable on facts. Moreover, the decision in Goodyear s case 1990 76 STC 71 (SC), the reasoning of which was adopted in Mukerian Papers case 1991 81 STC 152 (SC) 1991 2 SCC 580, has been held to be no longer good law by the Supreme Court in Hotel Balaji s case 1993 88 STC 98. In view of the findings recorded above, it is held that the tax imposed is on the purchase of goods mentioned in Schedule C in which tax is exigible on purchase of goods and not on the consignment/transfer to its own branches by the petitioner-corporation. The provisions enacted are within the competence of the State Legislature and, therefore, held to be intra vires. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 330 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... enefits of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, he has to comply with the conditions embodied therein. Exemption can be claimed if the last sale or purchase took place after and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to export. Since the sub-section was introduced with effect from April 1, 1976, the last sale or purchase contemplated under sub-section (3) can only be the last sale or purchase which took place on and after April 1, 1976. The Tribunal was therefore right in holding that only those purchases and sales effected on and after April 1, 1976, will be treated as purchases or sales in the course of export. The assessee was rightly held entitled for exemption in respect of purchases of lemon-grass oil effected on or after April 1, 1976. No error was committed by the Tribunal in holding so. For the reasons aforementioned the revision is found to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 329 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal, appears to be misconceived, inasmuch as once a demand is created in respect of any tax, interest, fee or penalty and a demand notice is served on the assessee then interest is payable if the said demand is not paid within the time mentioned in the demand notice. Simply because there was a stay, it cannot be said that the demand was not payable. It was not enforceable and for the purpose of recovery only it was suspended temporarily during the pendency of appeal. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed and bar of recovery automatically came to an end. The grant of stay cannot be interpreted to mean that the interest is not payable for the period during which the demand remained stayed. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Sales Tax Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that interest was not leviable. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is quashed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 328 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... marshall ideas in a logical sequence to arrive at a conclusion, as had been done in this case. At the same time, I, however feel, I cannot remain a silent spectator without giving vent to an expression of a special mention as to the strenuous efforts made by Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, in activating himself, heart and soul, by sparing time, amidst his multifarious career obligation, by projecting his arguments, with incisive precision and clarity to the core, associated with his usual fairness, daunted with the one and only laudable motive of assisting the court in arriving at a just and reasonable conclusion in accordance with the mandates of law. 32.. The discussion, as above, would lead one to the irresistible conclusion of dismissal of this writ petition even at the admission stage and as such, the same is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, W.M.P. is also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances. Petitions dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 327 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch circumstances could file an appeal, if he is aggrieved by the resulting order. All the procedural safeguards were thrown to the winds by the Commercial Tax Officer in issuing the impugned notice demanding immediate payment of tax. That is the reason why we hold that there is no authority of law to support the demand impugned in this writ petition. The fact that we have quashed the impugned order demanding payment of tax does not preclude the Commercial Tax Officer to act according to law with due notice to the assessee. In view of the arbitrariness of the Commercial Tax Officer in passing the impugned proceedings dated September 21, 1993, he shall pay the costs of the petitioner which we quantify at Rs. 1,000. The respondent shall either deposit the said amount of Rs. 1,000 in the court to be paid over to counsel for the petitioner or pay it over to the counsel for the petitioner within six weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Writ petition allowed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 326 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egistered. Even if C forms have not been obtained, the proviso to section 9(1) confers power on the State of Rajasthan being an agent of the Government of India to collect tax, if any leviable under the provisions of the Act on a subsequent interState sale. It is also an admitted fact that the case does not fall under subsection (2) of section 6 as required declaration forms were not submitted and, therefore, the liability of tax can be fastened on the assessee by the State of Rajasthan. The Sales Tax Tribunal therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the State of Rajasthan has the jurisdiction to levy tax in respect of subsequent inter-State sale for which necessary declaration forms as required under section 6(2) have not been submitted. The other points as mentioned in the revision petition have not been pressed and therefore, no decision is being given thereon. The revision petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 325 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tax at the rate of 2 per cent on the value of the works contract. In case the persons do not opt to be governed by the provisions of section 26(2) of the Act and the notification issued thereunder, it is the responsibility of the contractee of such building contract to deduct 2 per cent of the amount out of the account of the contractor which is adjustable in the manner provided, i.e., whatever is found due on the basis of assessment and if found in excess to be refunded to the person. Identical pleas challenging the constitutional validity of sections 25-B and 26(2) of the Act and the notification issued thereunder were raised in Tirath Ram Ahuja Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1991 83 STC 523 and the court found no merit in any of the contentions raised therein and consequently dismissed the writ petition. We also find no merit in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and consequently dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 324 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pted method in a case where accounts are rejected. In the absence of meter card or necessary details, the distribution of total consumption between different heads on an estimate basis was found to be proper. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has reasonably modified the current rate and the average market price adopted by the assessing authority. The estimate as sustained by the first appellate authority was confirmed. When the accounts and returns of the dealer are rejected on proper grounds, the estimate to be made in a particular case is largely a question of fact. The Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons for rejection of accounts. It has also adverted to relevant and basic materials in sustaining the estimate as modified by the first appellate authority. 10.. We see no error of law in the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 323 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f blocks it was cut into specific sizes and in this process the big blocks of stones were reduced to smaller pieces having definite length, breadth and thickness. It is also to be seen that the blocks and slabs are having a different commercial name in common and commercial parlance. Blocks are the basic raw material from which the slabs or other smaller pieces are cut and are reduced in size and it is not only the sizes which have been reduced but the slabs have been cut by a process, into smaller pieces having definite length and breadth and even the thickness has also been reduced and this definitely would be a process of manufacture. The assessee therefore, is a manufacturer and the benefit of notification dated March 23, 1963 could be availed. The declaration forms which were submitted while effecting the sale have shifted the point of tax correctly. No illegality is found in the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The revision is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 322 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provisions of Limitation Act would apply for such an application for review and it cannot be considered that the review application can be filed at any time and no limitation is prescribed therefor in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The provisions of Limitation Act have been made applicable in accordance with the provisions of section 29(2) and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in accordance with law. The application for review has been filed after expiry of 30 days and, therefore, the objection of the Registry that it is delayed by 81 days is correct. Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was of the view and was under bona fide belief that since no period of limitation is prescribed, therefore he can move an application for review at any time, I am of the view that this is no reason and there being no sufficient cause, the review petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 321 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 71 (SC) 1990 2 SCC 71 was not questioned before the Bench and that is why the Bench took care to specifically advert to and record the said circumstance. Similar view was expressed about Murli Manohar s case 1991 80 STC 79 (SC) 1991 1 SCC 377. Ultimately, for the reasons given, their Lordships held the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions to be intra vires. We have held that Goodyear s case 1990 76 STC 71 (SC), the reasoning of which was adopted in Mukerian Paper s case 1991 81 STC 152 (SC), is no longer good law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hotel Balaji s case 1993 88 STC 98 (SC). Section 4-B of the State Act, is thus held to be intra vires the Constitution and the State Legislature had the competence to enact the said provisions. Tax is imposed not on consignment/transfer of goods by the petitioner-corporation to its own branches but on the purchase of the goods. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 320 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l has held that since it is not iron and steel, it is taxable at 6 per cent. No reason is stated as to why it is so. On that aspect also, the Appellate Tribunal should make a specific finding and give reasons as to why and under what entry the scrap is taxable. On this matter also, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is far from satisfactory and so, we order remit on this count as well. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated June 9, 1993, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for passing fresh orders, in accordance with law. 9.. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since this Court had passed an order of stay pending the revision, this Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders regarding recovery proceedings. This is a matter for the Appellate Tribunal to consider since the appeal filed before it is restored. It is for the Appellate Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in this behalf. It shall do so. Matter remitted.
-
1993 (10) TMI 319 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evasion. The assessee had the documents, which were produced at the time of checking and the Sales Tax Tribunal found them as correct documents and not as false one. Even the main reason of difference of Rs. 150 which has been explained as pertaining to the insurance charges and the difference of date in the bill and bilty would not make the documents as false one. A person, who is effecting sale of 103 quintals would not try to evade the tax on 10.5 kg. This is only because of different weighing bridges. The transporter, even otherwise takes the weight in round figure. Since the weight in the different weighing bridges is at a different figure, which is not even 1 per cent of the total weight, but is .01 per cent would not lead to any conclusion that there was any attempt on the part of the assessee to evade tax. In these circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 318 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een reduced to Rs. 5,000 is not further required to be reduced any more. The various questions which have been referred by the assessee in the application for revision are reduced into following three questions (i) Whether the assessee who has purchased the goods from a manufacturer under notification dated March 23, 1963, for sale of goods within the State of Rajasthan or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is liable to pay tax under section 2(s)(iv) when the goods have not been utilised for the declared purposes? (ii) Whether the provisions of section 11-B of the Act could be made applicable for non-payment of tax under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act on the tax liability created in para 1? (iii) Whether the assessee has committed any offence under section 16(1)(k) of the Act or not? All the above questions are decided against assessee. The revision petition has, therefore, no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 317 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... them to arrive at the extent of concealment and then enhance the gross turnover for purposes of determining the taxable turnover. That being so, even though there is suppression, the determination of the turnover does not appear to be based on material and is on the higher side and guess-work cannot be said to be reasonable or bona fide. 12.. While making a deduction in respect of the tax-paid goods, the deductions were arbitrarily reduced. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that the assessee had not filed a correct return and as such, imposition of penalty under section 43 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was proper, but taking into consideration the increase made by 10 per cent for the assessment year 1980-81 cannot be said to be arbitrary, but enhancement for the assessment year 1981-82 is set aside, being on higher side. 13.. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority for determining the concealment and passing of fresh order of assessment.
-
1993 (10) TMI 316 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or in any other entry. We make this position clear. 9.. The tax revision cases are allowed. The appeals (T.A. Nos. 382 and 383 of 1991) will be heard by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal again on this aspect of the matter and orders will be passed as expeditiously as possible. 10.. Counsel for the assessee submitted that pending the revisions in this Court revenue recovery proceedings were taken for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,080 and wheel drums belonging to the petitioner have been attached and kept in the village office. We have set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and remit has already been ordered. The concerned Sales Tax Officer (assessing authority) shall, on furnishing sufficient security for the sum of Rs. 30,080 to his satisfaction, take appropriate steps to see that the goods attached are released to the assessee. Issue photostat copy of this judgment to counsel for the parties, on usual terms. Petitions allowed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 315 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the plaintiff had a subsisting title to the properties at the time of the suit?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants- defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
........
|
