|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 95 Records
-
1963 (4) TMI 69
Constitutional validity of certain notifications and directions issued under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the Export Control Order, 1958 - whether the restrictions and control for which provision might be made by s. 3 would not include a provision for canalising the trade in any particular commodity?
Held that:- It would be a matter of policy for the Government to determine, having regard to the nature of the commodity and the circumstances, attending the export trade in it, to lay down the basis for the classification between groups and fix their relative priorities etc. When el. 6(h) permits "canalising" or the "channelling" of exports through selected agencies it does not no more than make provision for the classification into groups etc. which but one of the modes which the "control" under a. 3 of the Act might assume.
In the case of a commodity like manganese ore for which there is not much of an internal market the denial of a right to any group or we shall add, to any individual to export would in effect affect him adversely forcing him to sell to others who have been given such a facility. Persons like the app- ellant were being fed on hopes of some relief to them and it was a case not merely of hope deferrer making the heart sick, but of dashed hopes that led the appellant to approach. the Court for relief. Though we consider that the appellant has no legal right to the relief that he sought, his grievance is genuine and it would be for the Government to consider how beat the interest of this class should be protected and it is made worth their while to win the ore so as to expand, foster and augment the export trade in this valuable commodity.
Reverting to the legal points raised in the appeal, it appears cleat to us that on the premises (1) that s. 3 of the Import & Export Control Act, 1947 is a valid piece of legislation, (2) that cl. 6 (h) of the Export Control Order is within the rulemaking power of the Central Government and is constitutional, there is no escape from the conclusion that no legally enforceable right of the appellant has been violated for which he could seek redress; under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether the appellant having prayed primarily for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the licensing authorities to consider his application for an export licence for the half year current at the date of the petition ',without reference to the terms of the impugned notifications and policy statement" and that half year having long ago gone by, he could be granted any relief by the High Court on his petition or by this Court on his appeal. It is possible that in such circumstances a person situated like the appellant might be entitled to a declaration as regards the validity of the restrictions imposed which continue to be in force even beyond the half year or year to which the licence relates. It is however unnecessary to pronounce upon this question which does not really arise for consideration in view of the conclusion that we have reached that the restrictions and control to which the trade has been subjected are legal and justified by the Act and the Rules framed there under. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1963 (4) TMI 68
Whether a confession made by the appellant and recorded by the Excise Inspector who was investigating the case is inadmissible by reason of the provisions of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Held that:- The learned judge apparently overlooked the fact that in the popular sense Excise Officers are also regarded as Police Officers, being referred to as "the Excise Police." Thus a consideration of the decisions of the High Courts in India shows that the preponderance of judicial opinion is in consonance with the view which we have already expressed. There is one more reason also why the confession made to an Excise Sub-Inspector must be excluded, that is, it is a statement made during the course of investigation to a person who exercises the powers of an officer in charge of a police station. Such statement is excluded from evidence by s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except for the purpose of contradiction. Therefore, both by s. 25 of the Evidence Act as well as by s. 162, Cr.p.c. the confession of the appellant is inadmissible in evidence. If the confession goes, then obviously the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly we allow the appeal' and set aside the conviction and sentences passed on the appellant.
-
1963 (4) TMI 67
Whether the adoption of Venkayya was true and valid?
Whether Pitchayya and Chimpirayya were divided as alleged by the plaintiff?
Held that:- We cannot therefore hold that there is any such clear and unambiguous declaration of intention made by Chimpirayya to divide himself from Venkayya.
In our view, it is implicit in the expression "declaration'.' that it should be to the knowledge of the person affected thereby. An uncommunicated declaration is no better than a mere formation or harbouring of an intention to separate. It becomes effective as a declaration only after its communication to the person or persons who would be affected thereby. In this appeal there are only two members in the joint family and it is not suggested that Subba Rao did not have the knowledge of the terms of the will after the death of Chimpirayya.
In present case, it will have to be held that on the death of Chimpirayya his interest devolved on Subbarao and, therefore, his will, even if it could be relied upon for ascertaining his intention to separate from the family, could not convey his interest in the family property, as it has not been established that Subbarao or his guardian had knowledge of the contents of the said will before Chimpirayya died. Appeal dismissed.
-
1963 (4) TMI 66
To what relief the suspended workmen whose names are mentioned in list ’A’ are entitled ?
Whether the termination of employment of the workmen whose names are mentioned in list ’B’ was justified ?
Are they entitled to reinstatement and/or compensation ?
Held that:- Coming to the case of the four workmen whose services have been allowed to be terminated. Nothing was urged before us with respect to the order permitting termination of service. Nor do we think that the order of the tribunal in this behalf is wrong. In their case the tribunal has said that if the inquiry proceedings had not been defective, these four persons would be liable to dismissal as ordered by the appellant. It is only because there was defect in the inquiry proceedings as stated above that it was held that the dismissal was unjustified. The tribunal therefore went on to permit the termination of service of these four workmen under one of the standing orders and finally ordered payment of wages for, a period of one month alongwith compensation at the rate of 15 days average wages for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
-
1963 (4) TMI 65
Whether the villages held by the appellant constitute an estate within the meaning of s. 2 (b) of the Bombay Act 47 of 1951?
If the villages constitute an estate, whether the exemption from payment of land revenue granted under the indenture is saved by sub-s. (3) of s. 3?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. By express provision the estate-holder is excluded from the benefit of sub-s. (3). The intention of the Legislature is clear: it is to withdraw the exemption in favour of the estate-holder from payment of land revenue if such right was granted under a cowl, That withdrawal is not to affect the rights of per-sons holding land in an estate under a special contract, or grant which was made or recognized by the terms of the cowl even if the right was to hold the land exempt from the payment of land revenue. The futility of the argument that the expression ",person" when it first occurs in sub-s. (3) includes the estate-holder, becomes obvious if the clause is read after substituting the expression "estate-holder" for "Person".
-
1963 (4) TMI 64
Whether the partition by the deed dated March 14, 1947, between Nagappa and his sons, the plaintiffs, was a sham transaction?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The deed of partition was undoubtedly executed and was registered, but the mere execution of the deed is not decisive of the question whether it was intended to be effective. The circumstances disclosed by the evidence clearly shows that there was no reason for arriving at a partition. Counsel for the plaintiffs practically conceded that fact, and submitted that Nagappa's desire to defeat his creditors, and to save the property for his sons, was the real cause for bringing the deed of partition into existence. Counsel claimed however that Nagappa had adopted the expedient of effecting a partition with the object of putting the property out of the reach of his creditors, and the genuineness of that partition should not be permitted to be blurred by the unmeritorious object of Nagappa.
-
1963 (4) TMI 63
Whether the expenditure of Rs. 3,19,766 incurred by the assessee in dismantling and shifting the factory from Sitalpur and erecting the factory and fitting the machinery at Garaul was expenditure of a capital nature and not revenue expenditure within the meaning of section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?
Whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the said expenditure of Rs. 3,19,766 ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The expenses for shifting and re-erection were incurred on capital account & the appellant cannot claim depreciation on the amount spent for acquiring an advantage. The questions referred was clearly correctly answered by the High Court in negative.
-
1963 (4) TMI 62
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the common manager should be assessed under section 13 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act in respect of the agricultural income-tax payable by the persons jointly liable?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. We come to the conclusion that the answer which the High Court gave to the question was not correct.
-
1963 (4) TMI 61
Whether the interim maintenance allowances received by the assessee under the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli, are income and therefore liable to tax?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Question was answered correctly by the High Court by saying that the interim maintenance allowances received by the assessee which do not form part of the commutation amount are income and are liable to be taxed and that the payments made subsequent to April 1, 1950, towards commutation amount are not income and not liable to be taxed.
-
1963 (4) TMI 60
In the event of the surplus being held to be income assessable to income-tax, whether the income should be ascertained by taking the market value of the shares as at the opening day of the year as the cost?
Whether there is any evidence on record to justify the Tribunal's finding that the assessee company was a dealer in shares not only in the year under consideration but in the years past ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It was open to the taxing authorities to consider the position of the assessee in 1943 for the purpose of determining how the gains made in 1944 should be computed, even though the subject of the assessment proceedings was the computation of the profits made in 1944. The circumstance that in an earlier assessment relating to 1943, the assessee was treated as an investor would not in our opinion estop the assessing authorities from considering, for the purpose of computation of the profits of 1944, as to when the trading activity of the assessee in shares began. The assessing authorities found that it began in 1943. On that finding the profits were correctly computed and the answer given by the High Court to the question of the computation of the profits was correctly given.
-
1963 (4) TMI 59
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the contract (works contract vs. sale of goods).
2. Determination of tax liability under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Intention of the parties in the contract.
4. Passing of property in goods (movables vs. immovables).
5. Composite contracts and their divisibility.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Contract (Works Contract vs. Sale of Goods):
The primary issue was whether the contract between the respondent and their customer was a works contract or a contract for the sale of goods. The respondents argued that the contract was purely for work and labour, akin to building construction contracts, which do not involve the sale of goods. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, however, determined that the contract was composite, consisting of two distinct parts: one for the supply of goods and the other for work and labour. The Tribunal later disagreed, viewing the contract as indivisible and purely a works contract.
2. Determination of Tax Liability under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The respondents sought a determination under section 52(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, on whether the supply of materials in their contracts constituted a sale and thus was subject to sales tax. The Deputy Commissioner concluded that the supply of materials was indeed a sale within the meaning of section 2(28) of the Act, making it taxable. Conversely, the Tribunal held that no sale was involved, and thus, the respondents were not liable for tax.
3. Intention of the Parties in the Contract:
The judgment emphasized that whether a contract is for sale or work depends on the terms of the contract and the intention of the parties. For a transaction to be considered a sale, there must be an agreement to transfer the title to goods for money consideration, and the property must actually pass in the goods. The court analyzed whether the parties intended to sell the materials as chattels or whether the supply of materials was merely incidental to the execution of the work.
4. Passing of Property in Goods (Movables vs. Immovables):
The respondents argued that the materials supplied became part of the immovable property (the building) once affixed, and thus, the property in the materials passed only after they were fixed, not as movables. The Deputy Commissioner rejected this argument, stating that the goods were not permanently fastened to the building and remained chattels. The court further clarified that the mere attachment of goods to a building does not necessarily make them immovable property.
5. Composite Contracts and Their Divisibility:
The court discussed the nature of composite contracts, which may consist of separate agreements for the supply of goods and for work and labour. It provided examples to illustrate when a contract may be considered divisible, with one part involving the sale of goods and the other involving work and labour. The judgment concluded that the contract in question was composite and divisible, with the supply of materials constituting a sale.
Conclusion:
The court ultimately held that the contract was not purely a works contract but a combination of two distinct agreements: one for the supply of goods and the other for work and labour. The supply of materials was deemed a sale, making it taxable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the petition, and the reference was answered accordingly.
-
1963 (4) TMI 58
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 regarding the definition of "component part" for the purpose of concessional tax rate.
2. Whether groundnut oil used in the manufacture of vanaspati and soap qualifies as a component part under section 3(3).
3. Validity of the denial of blank declaration forms under rule 22 to the petitioners by the taxing authorities.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Madras High Court addressed the interpretation of section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, focusing on the definition of "component part" for the concessional tax rate. The petitioners, manufacturers of vanaspati and soap, sought the benefit of the lower tax rate for goods used as component parts in their manufacturing process. The court examined the requirement for an article to be considered a component part, emphasizing that it need not retain its identity once it becomes part of another article, as long as it contributes to the composition of the whole. The court referred to various dictionary definitions to support this interpretation, concluding that identity retention is not a necessary criterion for classification as a component part under the Act.
Regarding the specific case of groundnut oil used in the manufacture of vanaspati and soap, the court analyzed the process by which the oil is transformed into a semi-solid substance through hydrogenation. Despite the loss of visual identifiability, the court held that groundnut oil qualifies as a component part under section 3(3) when it contributes to the composition of vanaspati or soap. The court distinguished between vegetable oils and vegetable products, asserting that vanaspati should be considered a separate product from the oils used in its production.
The judgment also scrutinized the denial of blank declaration forms to the petitioners by the taxing authorities, which prevented them from availing the concessional tax rate. The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the forms under rule 22 for transactions preceding the introduction of an explanation to section 3(3). As the explanation did not have retrospective effect, the court's interpretation of the section was made without considering the newly added explanation. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, directing the taxing authorities to provide the necessary forms to the petitioners for the relevant periods.
-
1963 (4) TMI 57
Issues:
Whether the respondent-company was a dealer within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, regarding the sale of old machinery.
Analysis:
The case involved determining if the respondent-company qualified as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, concerning the sale of old machinery from its mill. The company sold a Roto Coner and High Speed Warping Machine for Rs. 35,700 in 1956. The Deputy Commissioner initially deemed the company a dealer subject to tax, but the Sales Tax Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal's reference to the High Court questioned whether the company was a dealer for this specific sale. The definition of a dealer under the Act includes any person engaged in buying or selling goods, and the key issue was whether the sale of machinery was part of the company's business activity.
The Commissioner argued that the company's memorandum of association authorized the resale of machinery, indicating a business purpose. However, the Court highlighted that mere authorization to sell assets does not automatically make a company a dealer. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that the sale must be connected to the normal business operations to be considered part of the business. The volume and frequency of transactions were also considered, with reference to similar cases, but emphasized that profit motive is crucial in determining business activity.
The Tribunal found that the company sold old machinery to replace it with new machinery, not for profit, and such transactions were necessary but not part of the business. Despite a series of sales over the years, the Court concluded that the sale in question was not in the course of the company's business activity of cloth manufacturing. As a result, the Court answered the reference in the negative, stating that the respondent was not a dealer for the specific transaction. The Commissioner was directed to bear the respondent's costs, and the reference was resolved in favor of the respondent.
-
1963 (4) TMI 56
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 regarding tax liability on transactions in hides and skins.
2. Effect of the repeal of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 by the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on pending assessment proceedings.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under rule 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
4. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to revise an assessment order not communicated to the assessee under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 concerning tax liability on transactions in hides and skins. The petitioner, a dealer in hides and skins, did not file a return for the year 1954-55 under the Act. Initially, it was believed that only licensed dealers were liable for tax. However, the Supreme Court held that transactions in hides and skins were subject to multi-point tax under section 6-A of the Act. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer initiated proceedings against the petitioner, leading to a dispute over tax liability on transactions not covered by a license.
2. The judgment addresses the impact of the repeal of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 by the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on pending assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that since no assessment proceedings were ongoing when the new Act came into force, there was no jurisdiction to assess him. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that proceedings were indeed pending against the petitioner before the enactment of the new Act, regardless of whether they related to escaped turnover.
3. The judgment scrutinizes the compliance with procedural requirements under rule 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The petitioner contended that the assessment order dated 17th October, 1959, was invalid as the prescribed procedure under rule 12 was not followed. Rule 12 mandates issuing a notice to the dealer and conducting necessary inquiries before taking action. The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the failure to adhere to this procedure rendered the assessment order invalid.
4. The judgment delves into the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to revise an assessment order that was not communicated to the petitioner under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order since it was never communicated to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of notice and communication in exercising the power of revision, highlighting that a person affected by an order must be informed before any revision can be considered valid.
In conclusion, the judgment addresses various legal issues, including the interpretation of tax laws, the impact of legislative changes on pending proceedings, procedural compliance, and the necessity of communication in exercising revision powers under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
-
1963 (4) TMI 55
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Government of India is a "person" within the meaning of section 10 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.
2. Whether the purchase of sugar was in the course of business.
3. Whether the principle of estoppel is applicable to preclude the applicant from pleading the true state of affairs.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Whether the Government of India is a "person" within the meaning of section 10 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953:
The Tribunal initially framed the question as whether the Regional Director (Food), Bombay, is a person within the meaning of the Act. However, it was clarified that the contention raised was whether the Government of India is a person within the meaning of the Act. The court noted that the expression "person" is of wider amplitude and includes both natural and artificial persons. Article 300 of the Constitution provides that the Government of India is a legal person capable of suing and being sued, thus falling within the scope of the expression "person." The court distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the applicant's counsel, which dealt with the rule of construction that the Crown or State is not bound by a statute unless expressly stated. The court concluded that section 10 of the Act does not impose any tax liability on the Government of India but rather on the purchaser. Therefore, the Government of India is included in the term "person" under section 10 of the Act. The court answered this question in the affirmative.
2. Whether the purchase of sugar was in the course of business:
The applicant contended that he was merely an employee of M/s. Parasaram Parumal and that the purchases were made on behalf of his employer. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was the actual purchaser of the sugar, and after purchasing the goods, he handed them over to M/s. Parasaram Parumal without obtaining any consideration. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had frequently submitted tenders and purchased sugar, indicating a regular course of business. The court held that these activities constituted a course of business and that the purchases made by the applicant were indeed in the course of business. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative.
3. Whether the principle of estoppel is applicable to preclude the applicant from pleading the true state of affairs:
The applicant argued that he was merely a dummy for M/s. Parasaram Parumal and that the purchases were made on behalf of his employer. The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct-submitting tenders, paying for the sugar, and taking delivery-estopped him from claiming that he was not the purchaser. The Tribunal also considered and rejected the applicant's contention that he was merely an agent of M/s. Parasaram Parumal. The court noted that answering this question would be academic, as the Tribunal had already dealt with the factual questions and recorded findings against the applicant. Therefore, the court did not provide an answer to this question.
Conclusion:
The court answered questions (1) and (2) in the affirmative, confirming that the Government of India is a "person" within the meaning of the Act and that the purchases were made in the course of business. The court did not answer the third question, as it was deemed academic. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. The reference was answered accordingly.
-
1963 (4) TMI 54
Issues:
Assessment of sales tax on a licensed dealer and tanner for the year 1953-54. Jurisdiction of a Magistrate to recover tax exceeding a specified amount under section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution in the levy of tax at different points of sale.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a licensed dealer and tanner, was assessed to sales tax for the year 1953-54. The turnover included purchases of untanned hides and skins from licensed dealers, attracting tax at the point of purchase. The petitioner sought to prevent the revenue from collecting the tax, raising two main grounds. Firstly, questioning the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to recover tax exceeding a specified amount under section 24(2)(b) of the Act. The court held that the Magistrate's jurisdiction to collect tax as a fine is governed by the fiscal Act, not the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissing this ground of challenge.
Secondly, the petitioner alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the levy of tax at different points of sale. The contention was that tax should be levied at the sale point when tanned goods are sold to unlicensed dealers, as they do not benefit from the single point tax scheme. The court emphasized that any differential burden arose due to the failure of dealers in the transaction chain to obtain licenses, not due to discriminatory provisions of the Act. The court highlighted that the Act imposes tax at each point of sale, subject to concessions and exemptions, and upheld the validity of the tax scheme. The court rejected the discrimination claim, noting that the petitioner had not demonstrated any discriminatory treatment among licensed dealers.
The court emphasized that the State should not discriminate under Article 14, and equal treatment should be provided to similar entities. The court found no basis for discrimination in the tax assessment and dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no grounds for complaint regarding discrimination in the assessment order for the year 1953-54. The court concluded that the Act's scheme did not support the discrimination claim, referencing a previous judgment on a similar issue. The petition was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
-
1963 (4) TMI 53
The petitioner challenged a sales tax assessment based on Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming discrimination. The court found no discrimination as the tax law treated licensed and unlicensed dealers differently based on compliance with conditions. The petition was dismissed with costs.
-
1963 (4) TMI 52
Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
2. Appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer and subsequent appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Withdrawal of appeal and subsequent review application under section 36(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
4. Dismissal of the review application by the Tribunal.
5. Interpretation of section 55 of the Act regarding rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record.
6. Comparison with provisions in Civil Procedure Code and Indian Income-tax Act.
7. Analysis of the decision in Govinda Chettyar v. Varadappa Chettyar and its relevance.
8. Consideration of inherent power of the Tribunal to grant relief.
9. Reference to the decision in S. V. R. Natarajan Chettiar and Others v. State of Madras regarding inherent power of review by Tribunals.
The judgment involves a case where a dealer in textiles in Madurai was assessed to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The dealer appealed the assessment before the Commercial Tax Officer and later to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a stay on the appeal pending the decision of other cases. When those cases were disposed of, the dealer withdrew the appeal, which was subsequently dismissed. The dealer then filed a review application under section 36(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, citing a mistake made by counsel in withdrawing the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the review application, leading to a challenge before the High Court. The Court analyzed the provisions of section 36(6)(a) and section 55 of the Act regarding rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. It emphasized that the error must be manifest and self-evident without the need for external evidence. The Court referred to legal precedents to clarify the scope of "error apparent on the face of the record." Additionally, the judgment discussed the limitations of Tribunals' inherent powers in granting relief beyond statutory provisions, citing the decision in S. V. R. Natarajan Chettiar and Others v. State of Madras. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that neither section 36(6)(a) nor section 55 applied, and there was no inherent power for the Tribunal to provide relief beyond statutory restrictions.
-
1963 (4) TMI 51
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
2. Nature of proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
3. Whether the proceedings under the Act can be classified as civil proceedings.
4. Applicability of civil court jurisdiction to tax assessment disputes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India:
The primary issue was whether the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India was maintainable. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable under Article 133 or under sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code as the proceedings were not civil proceedings. The court held that if this objection was upheld, the application would be rejected in limine without considering the merits of the case for a necessary certificate under Article 133.
2. Nature of Proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939:
The court examined the nature of the proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Act is a self-contained, exhaustive code governing the assessment and levy of sales tax. It provides a hierarchy of authorities for the aggrieved party to challenge the correctness or validity of assessment proceedings. The court emphasized that the Act does not contain any special provision for appealing to the Supreme Court from a decision of the High Court arising out of proceedings under the Act.
3. Whether the Proceedings under the Act can be Classified as Civil Proceedings:
The court discussed whether proceedings under the Act could be classified as civil proceedings within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution. The court referred to various provisions of the Constitution and other taxing enactments like the Indian Income-tax Act. It noted that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Indian Income-tax Act is consultative or advisory, unlike the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which does not have a specific provision like section 66-A of the Income-tax Act for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The court concluded that the words "civil proceeding" in Article 133 should not be understood as any proceeding that is not criminal. The court found that the proceedings under the taxing enactment are not civil proceedings, as they are primarily concerned with the legality and validity of assessments under the Act, which are revenue proceedings.
4. Applicability of Civil Court Jurisdiction to Tax Assessment Disputes:
The court referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor-General in Council, which held that an assessee could not challenge the validity of an assessment in a civil court due to the statutory obligation to pay tax arising from the assessment. The court noted that the statutory rights and obligations arising under the taxing enactment are not of a civil nature. It emphasized that assessment to tax by the statutory authority is not a civil proceeding and maintains its character as a revenue proceeding even in the High Court.
The court also referred to decisions of other High Courts, such as the Patna High Court and the Nagpur High Court, which held that proceedings under taxing enactments are not civil proceedings. The court concluded that the deprivation of the right to attack assessment orders in a civil court implies that the statutory rights and obligations under the taxing enactment are not civil rights.
Conclusion:
The court held that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution was not maintainable as the proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, were not civil proceedings. The application was dismissed with costs.
-
1963 (4) TMI 50
Issues:
Interpretation of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in relation to the quarter ending 30th June, 1958.
Analysis:
The case involved questions referred to the Orissa High Court under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The first issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in reducing the tax rate from 7% or 5% to 2% for the quarter ending 30th June, 1958. The second issue was whether the Tribunal was right in finding that the restrictions and conditions specified in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, would apply to the same quarter, even though the section came into force on 1st October, 1958, after the quarter in question.
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was enacted on 21st December, 1956, with different provisions coming into force on different dates. Section 15 of the Act, which limited the tax on declared goods to 2%, only became effective on 1st October, 1958. However, another Act, the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, declared certain goods, including cotton fabrics, as of special importance in inter-State trade from 1st April, 1958, subject to the restrictions of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The Sales Tax Department argued that since section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act only came into force on 1st October, 1958, the restrictions specified in the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, were not applicable to the reduction of sales tax on cotton fabrics for the quarter ending 30th June, 1958. However, the Court held that the Parliament's intention was clear when enacting the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957, and the restrictions of section 15 were meant to apply from 1st April, 1958, regardless of the actual commencement date of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Sales Tax Department's argument was untenable. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in reducing the tax rate to 2% for the quarter ending 30th June, 1958, and in applying the restrictions of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act to declared goods for the same quarter. The reference was answered in favor of the Tribunal, and the petitioner was directed to pay costs to the opposite party, with a hearing fee assessed at Rs. 50.
|
9911796707
