|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 82 Records
-
1972 (3) TMI 73
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to ask for monthly returns and assessment for a broken period.
2. Jurisdiction to levy penalties for late submission of returns and late payment of taxes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction to Ask for Monthly Returns and Assessment for a Broken Period:
The petitioners, Hurdatroy Jute Mills Private Limited and its directors, challenged the assessment order dated January 20, 1969, for the period April 1, 1968, to November 30, 1968. They contended that respondent No. 1, the assessing officer, had no jurisdiction to ask for monthly returns and to make an assessment for a broken period instead of the entire financial year.
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. Section 6(1) of the Central Act specifies that tax liability is on sales effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce "during any year." Section 9(3) of the Central Act refers to the assignment of tax proceeds for "any financial year." Rule 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Bihar) Rules, 1957, mandates quarterly and annual returns, not monthly returns. The court concluded that the provisions of the Bihar Act and Rules relating to the period of return are not applicable to the Central Sales Tax, except regarding the manner and time of filing returns.
The court held that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to ask petitioner No. 1 to file monthly returns and to make an assessment for a broken period. The assessment should have been for the entire financial year from April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1969.
2. Jurisdiction to Levy Penalties for Late Submission of Returns and Late Payment of Taxes:
The petitioners also challenged the imposition of penalties for late submission of returns and late payment of taxes under sections 14(4) and 20(4) of the Bihar Act. The court examined whether these provisions were applicable to a registered dealer under the Central Act.
Section 9(2) of the Central Act states that authorities empowered to assess, collect, and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the State shall do so on behalf of the Government of India, as if the tax or penalty payable under the Central Act is a tax or penalty payable under the State law. However, the court noted that penalties under the Central Act can only be imposed for acts and omissions specified in section 10 of that Act.
The court referred to various judgments from other High Courts, which held that the substantive provisions relating to penalty under the State Act are not applicable by virtue of section 9(2) of the Central Act. The court agreed with this view, stating that the provisions relating to the liability to pay penalty are substantive and not procedural. Therefore, in the absence of a clear provision in section 9(2) of the Central Act incorporating the substantive provisions of the State Acts relating to the imposition of penalties, the court held that respondent No. 1 was not authorized to impose penalties for late submission of returns and late payment of taxes.
Additionally, the court noted that since respondent No. 1 had no power to ask for monthly returns and to make an assessment for a broken period, there was no basis for imposing penalties for not filing monthly returns within time or for the late payment of tax based on monthly returns.
Conclusion:
The court accepted both contentions raised by the petitioners and held that the assessment order passed by respondent No. 1 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The order of assessment was quashed by a writ of certiorari. The court allowed the sales tax authorities to pass a fresh order of assessment for the entire period from April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1969, in accordance with the law. The application was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1972 (3) TMI 72
Issues:
1. Validity of penalty under section 8(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Constitutionality of section 8(2) in relation to fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(g), 301, and 304 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the assessment order imposing a penalty under section 8(2) of the Act. The penalty was imposed for utilizing raw material purchased at a concessional rate for a purpose other than specified in the section. The court examined the scheme of the Act, which provided for a concessional rate under section 8(1) for specific purposes. It held that the imposition of penalty under section 8(2) was within the legislative competence to prevent abuse of the concession and ensure compliance with the conditions attached to the concessional rate. The court emphasized that the penalty was ancillary and incidental to enforcing the concessional provisions, making it valid under entry 54, List II of the 7th Schedule.
Issue 2: The petitioner contended that the penalty under section 8(2) violated its fundamental right under article 19(1)(g) and was unconstitutional under articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution. The court analyzed the restrictions imposed by section 8(2) in light of the constitutional provisions. It held that the conditions attached to the concessional rate were reasonable and aimed at promoting trade within the state or in inter-State transactions. The court emphasized that the power to prescribe concessional rates and prevent tax evasion was in the public interest. Referring to relevant case law, the court upheld the constitutionality of section 8(2) and dismissed the petition challenging the penalty imposed on the petitioner for utilizing raw material purchased at a concessional rate for a different purpose.
In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the penalty imposed under section 8(2) of the Act, emphasizing its role in preventing abuse of concessional provisions. The court also ruled that the restrictions imposed by the section were reasonable and constitutional, in line with the public interest and the promotion of trade within the state. The petition challenging the penalty was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs while the security deposit was to be refunded.
-
1972 (3) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the addition of Rs. 5,76,887.41 to the gross turnover for the period 1961-62 on account of possible omission.
2. Legality and validity of the addition of Rs. 2,85,471.37 to the gross turnover for the period 1st April, 1963, to 30th September, 1963, on account of possible omission.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Legality and Validity of the Addition of Rs. 5,76,887.41 for the Period 1961-62
The petitioner, a registered dealer, was subjected to a surprise inspection by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, resulting in the seizure of twelve books of account, including six items relevant to clandestine business transactions. The sales tax authorities made three additions to the petitioner's gross turnover for the period 1961-62: actual suppressed sales of Rs. 4,63,210.82, estimated suppressed sales of Rs. 6,90,564.00 for the period not covered by the seized books, and Rs. 5,76,887.41 for possible omissions.
The petitioner challenged the addition of Rs. 5,76,887.41, arguing it was based on no material and thus unsustainable. The court agreed, referencing case laws that emphasize the necessity of basing best judgment assessments on some material rather than mere guesswork. The court concluded that the sales tax authorities had already exhausted all available material in making the first two additions and that the further addition for possible omissions lacked any supporting evidence. Thus, the addition of Rs. 5,76,887.41 was not legal and valid.
Issue 2: Legality and Validity of the Addition of Rs. 2,85,471.37 for the Period 1st April, 1963, to 30th September, 1963
For the period 1st April, 1963, to 30th September, 1963, the sales tax authorities made two additions: actual suppressed sales of Rs. 5,70,942.00 and Rs. 2,85,471.37 for possible omissions. Similar to the previous period, the petitioner contended that the addition for possible omissions was unsupported by any material.
The court reiterated the principle that even for best judgment assessments, the determination must be based on some material. The court found that the sales tax authorities had already made full use of the seized accounts to calculate the suppressed sales. There was no further material left to justify the additional amount for possible omissions. The court concluded that the addition of Rs. 2,85,471.37 for the period 1st April, 1963, to 30th September, 1963, was not legal and valid.
Conclusion
The court answered both references in the negative, declaring that the additions of Rs. 5,76,887.41 for the period 1961-62 and Rs. 2,85,471.37 for the period 1st April, 1963, to 30th September, 1963, on account of possible omissions were not legal and valid. The department was ordered to pay costs, with a hearing fee of Rs. 150.
Separate Judgments:
Both judges, S.P. Sinha, J., and Shambhu Prasad Singh, J., delivered a consolidated judgment, agreeing on the conclusions reached.
-
1972 (3) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 21 versus Section 7(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for assessment when a dealer fails to file a return.
2. Interpretation of the term "escaped assessment."
3. Limitation periods for assessments under Section 21 and Section 7(3).
4. Validity of assessments made without initiating proceedings under Section 21.
5. Whether assessments can be made under Section 7(3) after the assessment year ends without provisional assessments.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 21 versus Section 7(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The primary question was whether Section 21 or Section 7(3) or both apply for making an assessment where a dealer fails to file a return of his turnover within the prescribed time. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, specifically Section 3 (charging section), Section 7 (machinery for assessment), and Section 21 (assessment of escaped turnover).
2. Interpretation of the Term "Escaped Assessment":
The court drew an analogy from the Income-tax Act of 1922 to explain the concept of "escaped assessment." It was noted that under the Income-tax Act, income escapes assessment if no return is filed by an assessee and no notice is served upon him within the assessment year. The court held that the same meaning should be given to the term "escaped assessment" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Therefore, if no assessment proceedings are commenced within the specified time, the turnover escapes assessment.
3. Limitation Periods for Assessments:
The court examined the limitation periods for assessments under Section 21 and Section 7(3). Section 21 allows for an additional year if a notice is served within four years, while Section 7(3) allows assessments to be made within four years. The court emphasized that these provisions operate in mutually exclusive fields, and the power to make a regular assessment and the power to make an assessment of escaped income are distinct.
4. Validity of Assessments Made Without Initiating Proceedings Under Section 21:
The court held that no assessment under Section 7(3) is possible if assessment proceedings have not been commenced by the end of April of the year following the assessment year. If turnover escapes assessment, Section 21 is the only provision under which it can be taxed, and Section 7(3) does not apply.
5. Assessments Under Section 7(3) After the Assessment Year Ends Without Provisional Assessments:
The court clarified that the assessing authority can proceed to make a final assessment under Section 7(3) after the assessment year is over, even if no provisional assessment was made or proceedings were initiated within the assessment year. The court emphasized that the statutory obligation to file returns does not proprio vigore initiate assessment proceedings.
Case-Specific Judgments:
S.T.R. No. 612 of 1965:
The court held that the assessment order passed under Rule 41(5) was invalid as no assessment proceedings were commenced before the expiry of the assessment year. The question was answered in the negative in favor of the assessee.
S.T.R. No. 138 of 1970:
The court held that the first assessment could be made under Section 21 as the turnover had escaped assessment due to the dealer's failure to file a return. The question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.
S.T.R. No. 550 of 1969:
The court held that the first assessment could be made under Section 21 as the turnover had escaped assessment due to the dealer's failure to file a return. The question was answered in the negative, allowing the assessment under Section 21.
Writ No. 3049 of 1970:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the first assessment can be made under Section 21, and the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 21 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the questions in S.T.R. No. 612 of 1965 and S.T.R. No. 138 of 1970 are answered in the affirmative, while the question in S.T.R. No. 550 of 1969 is answered in the negative. The writ petition was dismissed, and in each case, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1972 (3) TMI 69
Whether under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 the opportunity of being heard which was to be given to the assessees, would include within its sweep the right of cross-examination of a third party whose accounts were the basis of the best judgment assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer and the examination of which later on showed that the returns filed by the assessees were incorrect and incomplete?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. On a true interpretation of section 17(3), the proviso thereto and rule 15, the inescapable conclusion would be that the assessee has been given a statutory right to prove the correctness of his return by showing that the materials on the basis of which his return is found to be incorrect or incomplete are wrong and if for this purpose the assessee makes an express prayer for cross-examining the wholesale dealers whose accounts formed the sheet-anchor of the notice issued to the assessee, he is undoubtedly entitled to cross-examine such wholesale dealers. In view of the language in which the Rules are couched it seems to us that a determinative issue arises in this case-the department taking the stand that the returns filed by the assessees are incorrect and incomplete, whereas the assessees contend that their returns are correct and that the accounts of the wholesale dealers which formed the basis of the information of the sales tax authorities were wrong and incorrect.
-
1972 (3) TMI 59
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition for compulsory winding up.
- Whether the company was unable to pay its debts.
- Maintainability of the appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Jurisdiction of the Court:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of a learned single judge regarding the compulsory winding up of Delhi Kiryana Private Ltd. The Additional District Judge had initially ruled that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The company contested the jurisdiction and also the claim of being unable to pay debts. The learned Additional District Judge framed two issues on merits after determining the court's jurisdiction.
Inability to Pay Debts:
After considering the evidence, the Additional District Judge found the company unable to pay its debts, leading to the order for compulsory winding up. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by M. R. A. Ansari J., which prompted the company and its directors to approach the court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal citing the lack of a second appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Maintainability of the Appeal:
The court analyzed various legal precedents cited by the appellant's counsel, including cases from the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The court emphasized that the appeal did not meet the criteria for a second appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The court referred to provisions in the Companies Act, 1956, and previous legal interpretations to conclude that only one appeal was permissible, and no further appeal lay to the Division Bench of the court.
Conclusion:
The court accepted the preliminary objection and ruled that no second appeal lay under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, or under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs, affirming the decision of the lower courts regarding the compulsory winding up of the company. The court's decision was based on the specific legal provisions and precedents governing appeals in matters of winding up companies, emphasizing the limitations on appellate jurisdiction in such cases.
-
1972 (3) TMI 50
The High Court of Madras upheld the conviction of directors of a private limited company for failing to file the balance-sheet with the Registrar of Companies. The directors were sentenced to pay a fine, which was reduced on appeal to Rs. 100 each. The conviction was confirmed and the excess fine, if paid, would be refunded. The revision was dismissed.
-
1972 (3) TMI 49
Issues:
1. Validity of the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Dissentient shareholders' objections regarding payment of cash and preference shares.
3. Interpretation of provisions related to reduction of share capital and payment of preference shares in the context of amalgamation.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras, delivered by Veeraswami, CJ., and Raghavan, J., pertains to an appeal challenging the approval of a scheme of amalgamation under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme involved the merger of multiple companies into a new entity, Kothari (Madras) Ltd. The dissentient shareholders of Waterfall Estates Ltd. raised objections regarding the payment of cash and preference shares under the scheme. The court analyzed these objections in detail.
Regarding the objection related to the payment of cash, the court held that the process of payment of preference shares by the new company in the context of amalgamation does not constitute a reduction in the share capital of the amalgamating companies. The court emphasized that the purpose of confirming a reduction in capital is to protect creditors' interests, which are adequately safeguarded in cases of amalgamation. The court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited and concluded that the objection lacked substance.
On the objection concerning the payment of preference shares, the court ruled that such payment is valid even outside the context of winding-up, as in the case of the proposed dissolution of the amalgamating companies without winding-up. The court agreed with the lower court's decision that the provisions related to winding-up are not applicable in the scenario of amalgamation. Therefore, the objection regarding payment of preference shares was deemed untenable.
The court dismissed the appeal challenging the scheme of amalgamation, along with other related appeals, as they did not present any different legal grounds. Consequently, the court ordered the dissolution of the stay. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues surrounding schemes of amalgamation under the Companies Act, emphasizing the protection of creditors' interests and the applicability of relevant provisions in the context of such corporate restructuring.
-
1972 (3) TMI 34
Issues: Refusal to refund additional excise duty based on test reports; Ignoring part of the Chief Chemist's report; Discrepancy in yarn count analysis; Interpretation of tolerance limits; Petitioners' conduct in selling yarn below 51 NF counts.
Analysis:
The petitioners, yarn manufacturers, contested the imposition of additional excise duty by the Department based on test reports indicating yarn counts above 51 NF. The Department relied on samples taken and analyzed, showing counts exceeding 51 NF, leading to a demand for higher excise duty. However, the petitioners argued that one sample revealed a count of 49.4 NF, consistent with their own analysis, and sold yarn below 51 NF counts accordingly. They contended that their selling behavior aligned with the yarn quality they produced, indicating a discrepancy in the Department's assessment. The petitioners sought a refund of the additional excise duty, challenging the Department's decision to ignore the sample with a count below 51 NF, as it aligned with their own analysis. The Court acknowledged the discrepancy in the test reports and the petitioners' selling behavior, emphasizing that selling at a lower price and collecting excise duty at a lower rate indicated the yarn produced was below 51 NF counts, contrary to the Department's findings. The Court noted the importance of the sample showing a count of 49.4 NF and the petitioners' consistent conduct in selling yarn below 51 NF counts, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to the refund claimed. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the order of the respondent without imposing any costs.
-
1972 (3) TMI 33
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
2. Compliance with the rules of natural justice.
3. Delay in filing the writ petition.
4. Identification of samples with imported goods.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 167(8) versus Section 167(37) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
6. Request for reconsideration by the Central Board.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the order under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878:
The petitioners argued that there was no notice issued under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The notice was restricted to Section 167(37), which was evident from the contents of the notice dated 21st March, 1950. The Collector of Customs imposed a penalty under Section 167(8) during the adjudication stage without prior notice, which the petitioners were not called upon to meet. The court found this to be a mere technicality if it did not impact the case's facts.
2. Compliance with the rules of natural justice:
The petitioners contended that the entire proceedings were based on a chemist's report, which was never provided to them, leading to non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. The court cited a similar case (Assistant Collector of Customs v. Soorajmull Nagarmull, A.I.R. 1952, Calcutta 656) where the withholding of a test report was deemed a failure to follow the elementary rule of natural justice. The court concluded that the petitioners were denied an opportunity to be heard, thus quashing the adjudication order.
3. Delay in filing the writ petition:
The writ petition was filed in 1952, but due to jurisdictional issues, it was delayed. The petitioners initially filed a writ in the Calcutta High Court, which was later found to lack jurisdiction by the Supreme Court. The court acknowledged the delay but attributed it to the petitioners' legitimate contesting of jurisdiction in the Calcutta High Court.
4. Identification of samples with imported goods:
The petitioners sought a re-test of fresh samples drawn in their presence to identify the samples with the imported goods. The Customs authorities did not draw fresh samples, and the re-test was conducted on remnants of previous samples. The court agreed with the petitioners that the rules of natural justice required the identification of the report with the goods involved, necessitating samples drawn in the petitioners' presence.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 167(8) versus Section 167(37) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878:
The court held that the requirements of Section 167(8) are infringed only when prohibited goods are imported. Mis-description of goods, as in this case, would involve a penalty under Section 167(37) and not Section 167(8). The court concluded that imposing a penalty under Section 167(8) was not justified in the circumstances of this case.
6. Request for reconsideration by the Central Board:
The petitioners were denied the test reports, and fresh samples were not taken in their presence. The court found this to be a breach of the rules of natural justice, entitling the petitioners to a writ. The court rejected the plea for reconsideration by the Central Board, citing the extensive delay and the absence of test reports. The court quashed the orders dated 20th September, 1950, and 8th April, 1952, and ordered a refund of the penalty paid by the petitioners. There was no order as to costs.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders due to non-compliance with the rules of natural justice and the improper imposition of penalties under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The petitioners were entitled to a refund of the penalty paid.
-
1972 (3) TMI 32
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the notification and Rule 8 regarding the entitlement to claim rebate on excess production of sugar.
2. Whether the expression "sugar produced" includes all kinds of sugar, including dirty or waste sugar.
3. Determination of excisable goods subject to duty of excise and the marketability criteria for levy of excise duty.
Analysis:
1. The writ appeal challenged a judgment allowing a writ petition by the Nizam Sugar Factory for a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order rejecting their claim for a refund of excise duty. The central issue was the interpretation of the notification and Rule 8 governing the exemption from duty under special circumstances. The respondent sought a rebate on excess sugar production reprocessed from 'C' sugar and dirty sugar, claiming entitlement under the notification and rule. The central argument was whether the notification permits such rebates and if the duty was levied correctly on the excess production.
2. The contention revolved around whether the term "sugar produced" encompassed all types of sugar, including defective or waste sugar. The respondent argued that the notification allowed for rebates on all sugar produced, while the government counsel asserted that no duty was levied on dirty or waste sugar, making any rebate claim impermissible. The court analyzed the definition of excisable goods, the process of manufacture, and the marketability criteria for levying excise duty to determine the scope of the term "sugar produced."
3. The judgment delved into the definition of excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing that excise duty is imposed on marketable commodities. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision highlighting that only goods fit for consumption and marketable are subject to excise duty. The distinction between raw material and the final marketable product was crucial in determining the applicability of excise duty. The court concluded that dirty sugar, being non-marketable, was not subject to duty until it transformed into marketable sugar through reprocessing. Consequently, the interpretation of "sugar produced" was narrowed down to exclude non-marketable forms of sugar, leading to the reversal of the lower court's decision and the dismissal of the writ petition.
Overall, the judgment clarified the scope of excise duty exemptions, the definition of excisable goods, and the marketability criterion for levying excise duty, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing the entitlement to rebates on excess sugar production.
-
1972 (3) TMI 31
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the classification of the manufactured article under the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether the Authorities acted arbitrarily in classifying the article as excisable under the Act without providing the petitioner with an opportunity to contest.
3. Whether the demands made by the Authorities on the petitioner for excise duty payment are valid.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner argued that she was not given a fair opportunity to contest the classification of the manufactured article as excisable under the Central Excise Act. The Authorities unilaterally decided to classify the article as excisable based on an analyst report without providing the petitioner with a copy of the report or considering her objections. The petitioner requested a retest, but the Authorities delayed providing the report, leading to the rejection of the retest request as time-barred. The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the classification, as only one inadequate sample was taken for analysis, contrary to the usual procedure of taking three samples for testing. The rejection of the retest request was due to the unavailability of additional samples, indicating a lack of opportunity for the petitioner to verify the classification.
2. The court held that the proceedings initiated by the Authorities to levy excise duty on the petitioner's manufactured article were quasi-judicial in nature. The Authorities should have allowed the petitioner to contest the classification before finalizing their decision. Despite doubts regarding the classification, the Authorities relied solely on the Chemical Examiner's report to demand excise duty from the petitioner. The court emphasized that the Authorities should have provided the petitioner with a copy of the report, considered her representations, and ordered a retest if necessary. The demand for excise duty was based on the Authorities' decision without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to challenge it, violating principles of natural justice.
3. The Authorities claimed that the petitioner admitted liability to pay excise duty based on the Chemical Examiner's report. However, the court found that the petitioner's statements did not amount to an admission of accepting the report's correctness. The petitioner had requested a fresh test immediately after receiving the demands, indicating her refusal to accept the report without verification. The court concluded that the Authorities' reliance on the report without allowing the petitioner to effectively challenge it constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the demands made by the Authorities on the petitioner for excise duty payment were quashed.
In conclusion, the court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the demands made by the Authorities on the petitioner for excise duty payment. The court did not address the other contentions raised by the petitioner as they were deemed unnecessary. The Authorities were given the option to take further lawful actions regarding the petitioner's manufactured article.
-
1972 (3) TMI 30
Issues:
1. Validity of demand under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules.
2. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 131 of 1962.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of demand under Rule 10A:
The petitioners contested a demand issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, claiming it to be invalid as ultra vires the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The court referred to a previous decision where a similar rule was held ultra vires due to lack of statutory backing. The Central Government Standing Counsel did not seek to sustain the demand under Rule 10A, proposing to rely on Rule 9(2) instead. However, the court cited its own decision that Rule 9(2) cannot be invoked in cases where goods were cleared without an earlier levy and with the knowledge of excise authorities. Consequently, the court held the demand under Rule 10A as invalid, as it could not be invoked based on previous judgments.
2. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 131 of 1962:
The petitioners sought exemption under Notification No. 131 of 1962, which exempted certain iron and steel products from excise duty. The notification specified that manufacturers applying for a license after a certain date would not be eligible for the exemption. The court determined that the license issued was personal to the licensee, and as the petitioners applied for a license after the specified date, they could not be considered as entitled to the exemption. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that they were merely renewing the earlier license held by the transferors, emphasizing that the license was non-transferable. Consequently, the petitioners were deemed ineligible for the exemption under the notification.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, noting that since the department did not seek to demand under Rule 10A and the demand could not be sustained under Rule 9(2), the petitioners were successful in challenging the order imposing the demand. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, with no costs awarded.
-
1972 (3) TMI 29
Whether the shipment and export of iron ore by the appellant became liable to the said duty introduced on 2 August, 1966?
Held that:- Section 16 of the 1962 Act speaks of the fictional date only in relation to the order the date of entry outwards of the vessel. In the present case, the order of entry outwards of the vessel was made prior to 2 August, 1966. Therefore, the Customs Authorities in the impugned order acted without jurisdiction in imposing duty on the export by holding that the date of entry outwards of the vessel was the date "when the vessel arrived".
For the foregoing reasons the appellant is entitled to an order cancelling the notice dated 28 January, 1967 by which the Customs Authorities demanded duty from the appellant. The order of the Judicial Commissioner is set aside. There will be a writ setting aside the notice dated 28 January, 1967 and an order forbearing the respondents from taking any steps or proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 28 January, 1967. There will also be an order quashing the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 19 April, 1967 which gave effect to the notice and held the appellant liable to pay the export duty.
-
1972 (3) TMI 28
Issues:
1. Liability of a quasi-Government institution to pay excise duty on manufactured goods not intended for sale.
2. Interpretation of the definition of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Distinction between goods manufactured for sale and goods manufactured for one's own use in relation to excise duty.
4. Impact of the 1964 amendment on the definition of "manufacturer" and its implications on excise duty liability.
5. Application of Section 3 of the Act in determining excise duty liability irrespective of the intended purpose of manufactured goods.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the Corporation of Madras, a quasi-Government institution, contesting the Central Excise authority's demand for excise duty on iron and steel products manufactured for internal use. The petitioner argued that being a non-commercial entity, excise duty should not apply. The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise upheld the duty demand, leading to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner contended that the definition of "manufacture" and "manufacturer" under Section 2(f) of the Act, pre and post the 1964 amendment, did not encompass non-commercial manufacturing. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing the broad scope of the definitions, which included any process related to product completion, irrespective of the intended purpose, as per the Act's provisions.
3. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that excise duty under Section 3 only applied to goods intended for sale. It clarified that the Act did not differentiate between goods manufactured for sale or personal use. The judgment highlighted that the levy of excise duty was not contingent on commercial motives, citing precedent to support the taxation principle based on production rather than commercial transactions.
4. Post the 1964 amendment, the distinction between manufacturing for sale and personal use was eliminated. The court emphasized that even before the amendment, the Act did not exempt non-commercial manufacturing from excise duty. The broad definition of "manufacturer" encompassed all manufacturing processes, regardless of the goods' intended purpose.
5. The court concluded that the petitioner's argument was untenable, dismissing the writ petition. It reiterated that excise duty liability was determined by the Act's provisions, specifically Section 3, without regard to the goods' destination for sale or personal use. The judgment clarified that the Act's intent was to levy duty on manufactured goods, irrespective of the motive behind their production.
-
1972 (3) TMI 27
Whether the facts established in this case support the plea of estoppel put forward by Hungerford?
Whether there was any waiver or abandonment as pleaded by Hungerford?
Held that:- Section 15(5) of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be viewed in one of the two ways, i.e., that that provision does not apply to incorporated companies at all or alternatively that the incorporated companies must be held to reside in places where they carry on their activities and thus being present in all those places. Hungerford is an investment company. It had invested large sums of monies in Turner Morrison. Its board of directors used to meet in India now and then. It was (through its representatives) attending the general meeting of the shareholders of Turner Morrison. Under these circumstances, it must be held to have been residing in this country and consequently was not absent from this country. Hence, section 15(5) cannot afford any assistance to Turner Morrison to save the bar of limitation.
For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and it is dismissed
-
1972 (3) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the assessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Competency of the notice for rectification of the assessment order.
4. Appellant's procedural choices and their implications on the legal remedy.
5. Impact of the new Act on penalty and prosecution provisions.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant raised a question regarding the interpretation of Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the assessment for the year 1961-62 should have been made under the provisions of the old Act (Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) as the return was filed under the old Act. The learned judge acknowledged that the assessment should have been made under the old Act but concluded that the order of assessment and consequential orders and notices cannot be considered void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The judge emphasized that the proper course would have been to rectify the order to align with the provisions of the repealed Act of 1922.
2. Validity of the assessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The court addressed whether the assessment made under the 1961 Act was valid. The judge stated that a wrong reference to the power under which the order is made does not per se vitiate the order if there is another power under which the order could lawfully be made. The validity of the impugned order must be tested by whether the Income-tax Officer had the power to make such an order. The provisions of Section 23(3) of the 1922 Act and Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act are in pari materia, dealing with the same subject-matter of assessment. Therefore, an order under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act could be considered as made under Section 23(3) of the 1922 Act.
3. Competency of the notice for rectification of the assessment order:
The appellant objected to the competency of the notice for rectification of the assessment order. The court observed that the appellant did not argue this point before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, nor did he include it as a specific ground in his appeal. The court held that the appellant should have raised this issue during the appeal process and that it was incumbent upon him to put forward this ground.
4. Appellant's procedural choices and their implications on the legal remedy:
The appellant initially chose to appeal the assessment order but did not argue the point regarding the applicability of the old Act. The court noted that the appellant, having chosen one particular remedy, cannot in mid-stream start a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant should have pursued the appeal to the Tribunal if he believed his point was sound. The court emphasized that the appellant's fear of penalty and prosecution under the new Act was premature and that the appellant's remedy would be open under Article 226 if and when such penalty and prosecution occur.
5. Impact of the new Act on penalty and prosecution provisions:
The appellant contended that the penalty and prosecution provisions under the new Act were harsher than those under the old Act. The court found this argument misplaced as the present application did not concern penalty or prosecution. The court noted that if and when penalty and prosecution occur, the appellant would have ample remedies available. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant had not provided sufficient grounds to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, especially when an alternative and equally efficacious legal remedy existed.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the appellant should have pursued the available legal remedies through the Tribunal. The court held that the assessment made under the 1961 Act was not invalid, and the appellant's procedural choices did not warrant interference under the writ jurisdiction. The court also noted that the appellant's concerns about penalty and prosecution under the new Act were premature and could be addressed if and when they arise.
-
1972 (3) TMI 25
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - This is an application filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ to declare the provisions of section 34(1)(b) and (1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as ultra vires and unconstitutional. It is also prayed that the respondents should be restrained from enforcing these provisions in respect of the estate of the petitioner's father - It is true that the constitutional validity could not have been questioned before the authorities under the Act, but, nothing could have been lost if the petitioner had waited till he exhausted all the remedies and then come to this court. In any case, since we have held that the provisions of the Act are not unconstitutional, we would reject the writ petition - Petition dismissed
-
1972 (3) TMI 24
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was wrongly refused to the firm for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 ? " Questions answered in the affirmative
-
1972 (3) TMI 23
Assessee was compensated by payment for the loss of income or profit suffered by the wrongful act of the customers - amount received by the assessee as compromise decree consequent to the filing of suit for compensation for causing loss of part of assessee's business - true character of the money received by the asseesee on the basis of the consent decree, therefore, represents compensation for loss to the assessee in its trade and not for any loss of any capital asset and the said amount must, therefore, be considered to be a trading receipt of the assessee
|
9911796707
