|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 144 Records
-
1983 (6) TMI 170
Issues:
1. Dispute over turnover assessed under section 7-A, additional tax, and penalty under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Tribunal's confirmation of assessment under section 7-A and additional tax, but setting aside the penalty.
3. Applicability of penalty under section 12(5) for non-inclusion of purchase turnover taxable under section 7-A in the return.
4. Interpretation of rule 5(1) and its impact on the assessment year.
5. Tribunal's decision based on the timing of the rule amendment and the absence of specific columns in the return forms.
6. Argument regarding the correctness and completeness of the return for penalty imposition.
7. Tribunal's decision upheld based on the lack of clarity regarding the inclusion of purchase turnover under section 7-A in the total turnover.
Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed a case where the assessees disputed the turnover assessment, additional tax, and penalty under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal confirmed the assessment under section 7-A and the additional tax but set aside the penalty, leading to the State filing a tax case. The issue revolved around the non-inclusion of purchase turnover taxable under section 7-A in the return, impacting the penalty imposition under section 12(5. The assessing authority initially levied a penalty, which was later reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal considered the timing of rule 5(1) amendment, noting that the return forms did not specify the inclusion of purchase turnover under section 7-A. The Tribunal concluded that the non-inclusion was not deliberate but due to a lack of clarity, especially before a Full Bench clarified the matter recently.
The Government Pleader argued that the correctness and completeness of the return should determine penalty imposition under section 12(5), irrespective of the assessees' intentions. However, the Court highlighted the amendment to rule 5(1) and the absence of specific columns for purchase turnover under section 7-A in the return forms during the assessment year. The Tribunal's decision was supported based on the lack of clarity regarding the inclusion of purchase turnover under section 7-A in the total turnover. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the return filed by the assessees could not be deemed incorrect or incomplete given the circumstances and the recent clarification by a Full Bench on the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax case, affirming that section 12(5) could not be invoked in this scenario.
-
1983 (6) TMI 169
Issues:
- Assessment of taxable turnover for two consecutive years
- Contention on levy of tax on local sales versus inter-State sales
- Exemption claim based on G.O. Ms. No. 3602, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1963
- Interpretation of Central Sales Tax Act regarding hides and skins
- Reconsideration of previous judgment in light of subsequent decisions
- Comparison of decisions from different High Courts on hides and skins classification
- Distinction between raw hides and skins and tanned hides and skins for tax purposes
- Claim for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
Analysis:
The assessees were assessed for two consecutive years by the Commercial Tax Officer, Purasawakkam, leading to appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessees disputed the levy of tax, arguing that certain turnovers represented local sales of tanned hides and skins, not inter-State sales. Additionally, they claimed exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 3602, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1963. The Tribunal, following precedent, ruled that the turnovers indeed represented inter-State sales and were not exempt under the mentioned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Regarding the interpretation of the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessees contended that hides and skins, whether raw or tanned, should be treated as a single commodity under section 14, thus exempting them from further taxation on inter-State sales. However, this argument was dismissed based on a previous judgment that established the distinction between raw and tanned hides and skins for tax purposes.
The assessees sought reconsideration of the previous judgment in light of subsequent decisions, but the court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the earlier ruling. The court also compared decisions from different High Courts on the classification of hides and skins, ultimately upholding the original judgment's interpretation.
The court emphasized the distinction made by the local law between raw hides and skins and tanned hides and skins, highlighting different tax rates and points of taxation for each category. This distinction, coupled with the requirements of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, led to the affirmation of the Tribunal's decision and the dismissal of the tax cases.
Lastly, the assessees' request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected by the court, deeming it unsuitable for such action.
-
1983 (6) TMI 168
Issues:
- Interpretation of the term "consumes" in section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in the context of the purchase of timber for manufacturing packing cases.
Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to a tax revision case where the assessee, a manufacturer of packing cases, challenged the application of section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to their purchase of timber for manufacturing packing cases. The Tribunal had previously held that the purchases of timber were for consumption in the manufacture of packing cases, thus attracting section 7-A. The assessee contended that the term "consumes" should not be equated to "uses" and that there was no actual consumption of wood in the manufacturing process.
Upon review, the court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied section 7-A. The court addressed the argument of the assessee's counsel, who sought to restrict the meaning of "consumes" to imply devouring, citing a previous decision. The court highlighted that once the timber is used in the manufacturing process and transformed into packing cases, its identity as timber is lost permanently. The court emphasized that the process of manufacturing packing cases does amount to consumption of timber, even if interpreted as devouring, as the timber is no longer recognizable as such after the transformation.
The court further referenced the earlier decision cited by the assessee, which established that once the identity of goods is lost in the manufacturing process, they are deemed to be consumed in the manufacture. Therefore, the court concluded that in the present case, there was indeed consumption of timber in the manufacture of packing cases, justifying the application of section 7-A. Consequently, the tax case was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
-
1983 (6) TMI 167
The Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition regarding the tax liability of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, remanding the case to the assessing authority due to lack of necessary records for satisfactory disposal of the matter. The Tribunal found key agreements were not available, prompting the remand for a fresh assessment in accordance with law.
-
1983 (6) TMI 166
The High Court of Madras ruled that penalty under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act cannot be levied if the assessment is not made under section 12(4) based on the entries in the books of account. The court dismissed the tax case. (Case citation: 1983 (6) TMI 166 - Madras High Court)
-
1983 (6) TMI 165
Issues:
1. Interpretation of remand order by Deputy Commissioner.
2. Scope of revisional power under section 22-A of the Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of remand order by Deputy Commissioner
The case involved an appeal by a partnership firm against the assessing authority's order under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The firm contested the additions made to the turnover, specifically related to containers and consignment sales. The Deputy Commissioner accepted the firm's contentions, set aside the assessment order, and remanded the case for fresh disposal. However, upon re-examination, the assessing authority found additional turnover from consignment sales that had escaped taxation. The firm objected to this, stating that the assessing authority had exceeded the remand order's terms. The Deputy Commissioner agreed with the firm and set aside the tax on the additional turnover. The key issue was whether the remand order was open for a complete reassessment or limited to the specific points raised in the appeal.
Issue 2: Scope of revisional power under section 22-A of the Act
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, using his suo motu revisional power under section 22-A of the Act, reversed the Deputy Commissioner's order and reinstated the assessing authority's decision. The Commissioner believed that the remand order was not limited in scope, allowing the assessing authority to reconsider the entire case. However, the High Court disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation. The High Court analyzed the Deputy Commissioner's order, which focused on specific contentions raised by the firm regarding exemptions and deductions. The Court emphasized that a remand order should only empower the authority to reconsider the points raised in the appeal and not open up the entire assessment for review. The Court clarified that statutory authorities must adhere to the limitations imposed by the Act and ensure that revised assessment orders align with the remand order's directives. Consequently, the High Court allowed the firm's appeal, restoring the Deputy Commissioner's order and rejecting the Commissioner's revision.
In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the interpretation of remand orders and the scope of revisional powers under the Act, emphasizing the need for authorities to adhere to specific directives in remand orders and not expand the reassessment beyond the issues raised in the appeal.
-
1983 (6) TMI 164
Issues:
- Entitlement to claim exemption on a turnover under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act based on penultimate sales for export.
Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court in this tax case revolved around the question of whether the assessee was eligible for exemption on a turnover of Rs. 18,09,254.44 under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that the turnover represented penultimate sales that led to export, thus qualifying for exemption under section 5(3). However, the crucial requirement for claiming such exemption is demonstrating a prior agreement of sale between the dealer and the foreign buyer, with the local purchase being the penultimate sale before export. The Supreme Court precedent in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore was cited to support this principle. In this case, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence of a prior sale agreement, relying solely on affidavits from exporters stating the goods were purchased to fulfill export commitments. The assessing authority, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal all held that without concrete proof of a penultimate sale, the exemption could not be granted. The Tribunal specifically highlighted the absence of original contracts or contemporaneous documents to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the affidavits should have been considered as substantial evidence, but the High Court clarified that while affidavits can be admissible, their weight is subject to the presence of corroborative documents. The Court emphasized that mere production of affidavits does not automatically validate the claim for exemption, and the Tribunal was justified in requiring additional evidence. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, stating that the exporters could have easily provided the necessary agreements to establish the sequence of sales leading to export. Consequently, the tax case was dismissed, affirming the denial of exemption to the assessee.
-
1983 (6) TMI 163
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962.
2. Validity of SRO No. 267.
3. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Legality of retrospective tax imposition.
5. Continuation of exemption under SRO No. 468.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962:
The petitioners argued that Section 5 of the Act suffers from excessive delegation of powers, giving uncanalised and unguided powers to the Government, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents countered that the classification and delegation in taxing statutes are permissible and necessary due to the legislature's wide powers in such matters. The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5, referencing past judgments which established that the legislature can delegate the power to select persons or objects for tax exemption. The court cited Hiralal Rattanlal v. Sales Tax Officer and Orient Weaving Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India to support its decision, stating that the delegation of such details to the Government is essential due to ever-changing social, economic, and administrative conditions.
2. Validity of SRO No. 267:
The petitioners challenged SRO No. 267, claiming it was discriminatory and violated Article 14. The respondents argued that the SRO was not discriminatory as brick manufacturers and tile manufacturers were not similarly situated. The court agreed with the respondents, noting that the tile industry was new and required incentives, unlike the well-established brick industry. The court concluded that the classification had a clear nexus with the Government's policy of industrialisation and was not violative of Article 14.
3. Alleged Discrimination Under Article 14:
The petitioners claimed that SRO No. 267 was discriminatory as it treated brick manufacturers differently from tile manufacturers, despite similar circumstances. The court found that the two industries were not similarly situated, as the tile industry required incentives to establish itself, unlike the brick industry. The court held that the classification was reasonable and had a nexus with the objective of promoting industrialisation, thus not violating Article 14.
4. Legality of Retrospective Tax Imposition:
The petitioners argued that the notices issued to them to submit accounts or pay sales tax from 1st April 1977 were illegal as they imposed tax retrospectively. The court clarified that SRO No. 468, which exempted bricks from sales tax, ceased to be effective after 31st March 1977. Hence, the petitioners became liable to pay sales tax automatically from 1st April 1977 under Section 4 of the Act. The court concluded that charging tax from this date was not retrospective, as the liability arose immediately after the exemption ended.
5. Continuation of Exemption Under SRO No. 468:
The petitioners contended that SRO No. 468 continued to provide exemption as it was not explicitly superseded by subsequent SROs, including SRO No. 267. The court rejected this argument, stating that SRO No. 468 was only effective until 31st March 1977. After this date, the exemption ceased, and the petitioners were liable to pay sales tax. The court emphasized that there is no rule of "once exemption, always an exemption."
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in any of the grounds raised by the petitioners. The constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Act was upheld, SRO No. 267 was deemed non-discriminatory, and the imposition of sales tax from 1st April 1977 was found to be legal and non-retrospective. The court also ruled that the exemption under SRO No. 468 did not continue beyond its specified period. The stay orders issued earlier were vacated, and the petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 162
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by authorities for not producing order levying penalty along with memorandum of appeal.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, a wholesale wine merchant, transported Golden Eagle Beer from Uttar Pradesh to Mysore. The vehicle carrying the liquor was checked at a Sales Tax Check Post, where the driver failed to produce necessary documents. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 12,000 was imposed for contravening tax laws. The petitioner appealed the penalty, but the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal for not including the order levying the penalty. Subsequently, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and the appeal was defective.
The primary issue in this case is whether the dismissal of the appeal by the authorities for not producing the order levying the penalty along with the memorandum of appeal was justified. The relevant provisions under scrutiny are Section 20 of the Act, Rule 28(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, and Form 15. Rule 28(2) mandates that an appeal must be accompanied by the order appealed against unless satisfactory explanation is provided.
Upon examination, it was found that the petitioner had not received the order levying the penalty but only a notice. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal based on the absence of the order, without considering the circumstances. However, the petitioner's lack of awareness regarding the order, coupled with the fact that he acted based on the notice served upon him, indicates that the demand for the order was unjustified. The petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle but not present during the inspection, was not in possession of the order.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, overturning the decisions of the Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner with directions to entertain and decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law.
-
1983 (6) TMI 161
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962.
2. Requirement of a prior demand notice for the recovery of interest under Section 8.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of Section 8:
The petitioners argued that Section 8 of the Act is violative of Articles 14, 19, 265, 301, and 304 of the Constitution of India, claiming it to be confiscatory rather than compensatory due to the high interest rate of 3% per month. They also contended that selling goods on credit, an unavoidable business practice, would adversely affect their business due to the interest burden.
The court refuted these arguments, emphasizing that interest, tax, and penalty are distinct concepts. Interest is compensatory in nature, meant to cover the delay in payment of tax, and not penal. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which held that interest is compensatory and not confiscatory. Additionally, the Act also mandates the government to pay interest on delayed refunds, ensuring fairness. The court concluded that Section 8 is constitutionally valid and does not infringe upon the petitioners' rights to trade or business.
2. Requirement of a Prior Demand Notice:
The petitioners contended that no interest could be recovered without first serving a prior notice of demand as per Section 8 of the Act. The court analyzed Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, which detail the procedures for filing returns, assessment, and recovery of tax. Section 8(1) specifies that tax assessed must be paid within a specified time, failing which it becomes recoverable with interest.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U.P., which held that interest liability is automatic and arises by operation of law without the need for a separate demand notice. Similarly, in A.C.C. Limited's case, the Supreme Court upheld the recovery of interest on delayed tax payments, interpreting the relevant provisions to mean that interest accrues from the date the tax falls due, not from the date of a subsequent demand notice.
The court concluded that the assessing authority is not required to issue a prior notice of demand to charge interest. The liability to pay tax arises when the return is filed or should have been filed, and interest accrues from the due date of the tax payment. The court also dismissed the argument that interest could not be levied for the first quarter of the year 1978-79, as the amendment introducing interest came into effect before the expiry of the first quarter.
Judgment:
The court dismissed all petitions, upholding the constitutionality of Section 8 and ruling that no prior demand notice is required for the recovery of interest. The orders staying the recovery of sums demanded from the petitioners were vacated. The petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 160
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-company is unable to pay the debt.
2. Whether there is a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding the debt payable by the respondent-company to the petitioner.
3. Relief.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the respondent-company is unable to pay the debt:
The financiers alleged that the company owed them Rs. 7,80,528.76 and served a notice demanding the amount. The company disputed the debt and denied liability. The financiers argued that the company was unable to pay its debt and should be wound up under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The court noted that if a debt is bona fide disputed, the proper remedy for the creditor is to establish the debt through a civil action rather than a winding-up petition. A winding-up order is based on the presumption of insolvency if the company fails to pay a debt after a statutory notice, but this presumption does not apply if the debt is disputed bona fide.
2. Whether there is a bona fide dispute between the parties regarding the debt payable by the respondent-company to the petitioner:
The company pleaded that there was a bona fide dispute regarding the debt. Harminder Singh Bala, who was the managing director of both the financiers and the company until April 11, 1980, allegedly created false liabilities against the company by manipulating entries in the company's books. The company argued that these entries were fictitious and did not reflect a genuine debt.
The court examined the circumstances, including the removal of Harminder Singh Bala and the subsequent investigation by a sub-committee, which found manipulated entries in the company's books. The financiers admitted that no cash payments were made, only liabilities were shifted. The court found that the company had raised a bona fide dispute regarding the debt, supported by substantial evidence and prima facie proof.
3. Relief:
The court concluded that the dispute raised by the company was bona fide and substantial. The entries in the account books, which were the basis of the financiers' claim, were made during the period when Harminder Singh Bala was managing director. The court noted that the company had offered to provide security to protect the financiers' interests, indicating that the defence was not a camouflage to cover insolvency.
The court held that winding up is not a device for claiming disputed debts. If the debts are bona fide disputed, they should be established in a civil court. The mere existence of entries in the account books and the balance-sheet was not sufficient to hold that the debt was not bona fide disputed.
Conclusion:
The court accepted the appeals, set aside the order of the learned single judge, and dismissed the petition for winding up filed by the financiers. No order as to costs was made.
-
1983 (6) TMI 159
Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
2. Expunging remarks made in the judgment dated November 19, 1981.
3. Locus standi of equity shareholders.
4. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
5. Maintainability of the present application.
6. Inherent powers of the court.
7. Relationship between the company and its managing directors.
8. Principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959:
The application was filed to invoke the inherent powers of the court to expunge certain remarks made in the judgment dated November 19, 1981, in Company Petition No. 49 of 1978. The court noted that Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules is in pari materia with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides inherent powers to the court but only for procedural purposes and not for substantive changes.
2. Expunging remarks made in the judgment dated November 19, 1981:
The applicants sought to expunge remarks made against them, arguing they had no opportunity to address the charges. The court analyzed whether these remarks were integral to the judgment and found that they were based on evidence and formed a vital link in the chain of reasoning. Consequently, the court concluded that it could not grant the prayer to delete the remarks under Section 151.
3. Locus standi of equity shareholders:
The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of equity shareholders to oppose the petition. It was determined that the shareholders had sufficient locus standi to object to the petition and present their case before the court.
4. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation:
The objecting shareholders and creditors argued that the scheme for reducing share capital was a camouflage and a fraud on the statute, intended to effect a family arrangement among the managing directors. The court found that the managing directors had misled the board and the general body by withholding relevant facts and representing false facts.
5. Maintainability of the present application:
The court examined whether the application was maintainable under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. It concluded that the inherent power of the court is procedural and cannot be exercised to alter the judgment substantively. The court also noted that the applicants had an alternative remedy by appealing to the appellate court.
6. Inherent powers of the court:
The court discussed the scope of its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and concluded that these powers are limited to procedural matters and cannot be used to conflict with express provisions of the Code. The court cited various judgments to support this view, including Padam Sen v. State of U.P. and Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal.
7. Relationship between the company and its managing directors:
The court analyzed the relationship between the company and its managing directors, noting that while the company has a separate legal personality, the managing directors are its officers and act on its behalf. The court concluded that the managing directors were not total strangers to the proceedings and were, in fact, the real parties interested in the outcome.
8. Principles of natural justice:
The applicants argued that the remarks were made without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, violating the principles of natural justice. The court found that the managing directors had ample opportunity to present their case but chose not to file affidavits or participate actively. The court cited Roshan Lal Mehra v. Ishwar Dass to support the view that a party cannot claim a breach of natural justice if it had the opportunity to participate but chose not to.
Conclusion:
The court held that the application was not maintainable on merits and dismissed it. The remarks made in the judgment were based on evidence and were integral to the court's reasoning. The managing directors had the opportunity to defend themselves but chose not to, and thus could not claim a breach of natural justice. The court discharged the rule issued in the application without any order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 157
Issues Involved:
1. Appointment and role of the valuer.
2. Valuation methodology and fairness.
3. Disclosure of documents and procedural fairness.
4. Judicial review of the valuer's report.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Appointment and Role of the Valuer:
The applicant moved an application under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the company and two of its directors, seeking the appointment of a special officer or an administrator and an investigation into the dealings of the company. An order dated February 1, 1982, stipulated that the petitioner would sell his shares to the respondents, and a valuer, Shri A. Basu, was appointed to ascertain the fair value of the shares as of December 8, 1980. The court retained seisin of the matter, indicating that the valuation report was intended to serve as evidence rather than a binding arbitration award.
2. Valuation Methodology and Fairness:
The valuer determined the fair market value of one fully paid share of the company at Rs. 283.55 and the aggregate value of the petitioner's 2,000 shares at Rs. 5,67,100. The petitioner challenged this valuation, arguing that it was ex facie erroneous and grossly undervalued the shares. The petitioner contended that the company's assets, including plant and machinery and a flat, were significantly undervalued. For instance, the plant and machinery, which earned hire charges over Rs. 4 lakhs annually, were argued to be worth more than Rs. 65 lakhs when valued at 16 times the rental charges. The flat's reasonable rent was stated to be Rs. 8 per sq. ft. per month, leading to a valuation of Rs. 34 lakhs, though the company admitted a market rent of Rs. 4 per sq. ft.
3. Disclosure of Documents and Procedural Fairness:
The petitioner alleged that the valuer did not provide copies of the documents submitted by the company, which were considered in the valuation process. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to inspect these documents, and the valuer appointed an engineer-valuer without informing the parties. The valuer's failure to disclose the engineer's report further compounded the procedural unfairness. The court found that the hearing by the valuer was ineffective and vitiated as the parties were unaware of the material evidence on which the valuer based his valuation.
4. Judicial Review of the Valuer's Report:
The court examined whether the valuer acted as an arbitrator or quasi-arbitrator and concluded that the valuer was not appointed by consent to act as an arbitrator. The court retained jurisdiction over the matter, and the valuer's report was intended as evidence rather than a final, binding decision. The court held that the valuer's report could be reviewed and set aside if it was found to be procedurally flawed or based on erroneous principles. The court cited several precedents, including Hopper, In re [1876] 2 QB 367, where valuations made in a judicial capacity were subject to review if they contained errors or were based on incorrect principles.
Conclusion:
The court set aside the valuer's report due to procedural irregularities and the failure to provide the petitioner with a fair hearing. A new valuer, Mr. K. P. Bhargava, was appointed to revalue the shares and submit a detailed report, including the break-up of the company's assets and the basic calculations. The new valuer was directed to disclose all evidence and material to the parties and allow them to be heard before finalizing the report. The initial remuneration for the new valuer was fixed at Rs. 7,000, to be paid by the petitioner. The report would be subject to confirmation by the court, and other orders prayed for would be considered before the final disposal of the application.
-
1983 (6) TMI 136
Issues Involved:
1. Right of workmen to be heard before advertisement of winding-up petition.
2. Merits of the winding-up petition and whether the advertisement should have been ordered.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Right of Workmen to be Heard:
The primary contention was whether the workmen of the company had a right to be heard before the advertisement of the winding-up petition. The appellant-union argued that as per the Supreme Court's ruling in National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramakrishnan, the workmen have a right to be heard at the stage of advertisement of a winding-up petition. The workmen had made two applications (C.A. No. 109 of 1980 and C.A. No. 774 of 1980) seeking an opportunity to be heard, which were not considered before the order was passed. The appellant contended that the order made without hearing the workmen was in violation of natural justice and should be declared void.
The court acknowledged that the workmen had a right to be heard, and their applications were not posted as directed by the company judge. The court examined whether the breach of natural justice could render the order void and whether the appellate hearing could cure this defect. The court referred to various legal principles and precedents, including the observations in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized that non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudicial.
The court concluded that the terminology of "void" and "voidable" is not absolute in public law situations. The court held that in judicial proceedings, a full-fledged appellate hearing where the aggrieved party is afforded an opportunity to present its case could cure the defect in the original proceedings. The court cited the Supreme Court's observation in State of U.P. v. Muhammad Nooh, which recognized that in certain cases, an appellate procedure could cure the original defect.
2. Merits of the Winding-Up Petition:
The second issue was whether, on the merits, the advertisement of the winding-up petition was warranted. The appellant-union adopted the arguments of the company's appeal (O.S.A. No. 9 of 1983), which was heard together with this appeal. The court, in its judgment in O.S.A. No. 9 of 1983, dismissed the company's appeal and held that the order directing advertisement did not call for interference. Consequently, this conclusion also applied to the present appeal, and the court held against the appellant on this point.
The court noted that the facts and circumstances leading up to the filing of the winding-up petition and the subsequent proceedings were detailed in the judgment of O.S.A. No. 9 of 1983, and it was unnecessary to repeat them. The court also observed that the workmen's union had the locus standi to represent the workmen, and it was not disputed that the workmen had sought an opportunity to be heard.
The court ultimately held that the defect in the original proceedings before the company court was cured by the full hearing afforded in the appeal. The court emphasized that the appellate jurisdiction was co-extensive with the original jurisdiction, and the appellant had availed itself of this jurisdiction. The court also noted that no winding-up order had been made yet, and the workmen could still urge their contentions before the company court.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order directing advertisement of the winding-up petition did not call for interference. The court also refused the appellant's oral application for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law of general importance. The court granted a stay of the judgment's operation and further proceedings in the company petition until July 31, 1983, pending the appellant's intention to move the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
-
1983 (6) TMI 135
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of the register of members under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Legality of forfeiture of shares for alleged losses incurred by shareholders.
3. Applicability of lien on shares for unpaid dues.
4. Jurisdiction and appropriateness of the remedy sought in the petition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rectification of the Register of Members under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The petitioners sought rectification of the register of members of New Samundri Transport Co. (P.) Ltd., Ferozepur, claiming that their shares were wrongfully forfeited and transferred to other individuals. The petition was initially filed by eight petitioners, but due to various reasons, it proceeded with five remaining petitioners.
2. Legality of Forfeiture of Shares for Alleged Losses Incurred by Shareholders:
The core issue was whether the shares could be forfeited for losses incurred by shareholders while managing the company. The petitioners argued that the forfeiture was neither justified under the law nor under the articles of association, and no notice of forfeiture was served. They contended that the forfeiture procedure under regulations 29 to 35 was not followed, rendering the forfeiture void ab initio.
The respondents defended the forfeiture, claiming that the petitioners had incurred significant losses while running the company separately and had not paid the due amounts, justifying the forfeiture. However, the court found considerable force in the petitioners' contention that shares could not be forfeited for such losses. The court emphasized that the losses incurred during the period of separation were the company's losses and had to be met out of the company's assets.
3. Applicability of Lien on Shares for Unpaid Dues:
The court examined regulations 9 and 10 of Table "A", Schedule I of the Companies Act, 1956, which deal with the company's lien on shares. Regulation 9 provides that the company has a lien on shares for unpaid dues, but this applies only to shares that are not fully paid up. Regulation 10 allows the company to sell shares on which it has a lien, provided certain conditions are met.
The court concluded that the petitioners could not be considered debtors for the alleged losses, as the losses were incurred by the company during the period of separation. The petitioners' shares were not subject to lien for these losses, and the board of directors could not legally forfeit the shares without determining individual liabilities and providing separate notices.
4. Jurisdiction and Appropriateness of the Remedy Sought in the Petition:
The respondents argued that the petitioners should seek their remedy in a civil court due to the involvement of complicated questions of fact. However, the court found that no complicated questions of fact were involved and that the matter could be decided on a pure question of law. The court rejected the respondents' contention and held that the petition was appropriately filed under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, directing that the names of the petitioners be restored in the register of members and the names of the respondents be deleted. The necessary rectification in the register of members was ordered without any costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 134
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit.
2. Whether the suit in the present form does not lie.
3. Validity of the transfer deed according to company rules.
4. Alleged compromise between the plaintiff and defendant.
5. Proper valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction purposes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Try the Suit:
The primary issue in the appeal was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit in light of sections 111 and 155 of the Companies Act. The appellant argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred, and the remedy should be sought under section 155 of the Companies Act, which provides a summary remedy. The respondent contended that the civil court's jurisdiction was not excluded as the remedy under section 155 was discretionary and summary in nature. The court concluded that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not expressly or impliedly barred for matters falling under section 155. The court emphasized that section 155 provides a summary remedy, and complex issues should be adjudicated by civil courts. Therefore, the civil court's jurisdiction was upheld.
2. Whether the Suit in the Present Form Does Not Lie:
The judgment did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the jurisdictional question. However, the court implicitly upheld the form of the suit by addressing the jurisdictional issue and proceeding with the substantive matters.
3. Validity of the Transfer Deed According to Company Rules:
The court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment. The primary focus was on the jurisdictional question, and the validity of the transfer deed was not a central point of contention in the appeal.
4. Alleged Compromise Between the Plaintiff and Defendant:
Similar to the third issue, the court did not discuss the alleged compromise in detail. The judgment primarily addressed the jurisdictional question, leaving other issues to be resolved subsequently if necessary.
5. Proper Valuation of the Suit for Court Fee and Jurisdiction Purposes:
The court did not provide an in-depth analysis of this issue, as the main focus was on the jurisdictional question. The valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction purposes was not a central point of contention in the appeal.
Conclusion:
The court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred for matters falling within the purview of section 155 of the Companies Act. The judgment emphasized that section 155 provides a summary remedy, and complex issues should be adjudicated by civil courts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the civil court's jurisdiction to try the suit was upheld. The court did not make any order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
2. Prima facie case under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Suppression of material facts by the complainant.
4. Nature of the petitioner's role as an officer of the company.
5. Allegation of mala fide intent in filing the complaint.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate:
The petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, to take cognizance of the offence. The argument was that the property in question was situated in Cochin, and thus, the offence should be tried there. However, the court referred to section 181(4) of the Cr. PC, which allows for the trial of an offence where any part of the property was received, retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for. The court concluded that since the petitioner's appointment and accountability were linked to the company's head office in Calcutta, the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.
2. Prima facie case under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court examined whether the petition of complaint and the initial deposition disclosed a prima facie case under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The section penalizes an officer or employee who wrongfully withholds company property. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, after termination of his employment, failed to vacate the company-provided premises. The court found that the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence, as the complaint and depositions prima facie indicated wrongful withholding of company property.
3. Suppression of material facts by the complainant:
The petitioner alleged that the complainant company suppressed material facts to harass him. The court reviewed the petition of complaint and found references to ongoing civil suits and relevant correspondence, indicating no suppression of material facts. The court allowed the trial court to consider this plea in depth during the trial.
4. Nature of the petitioner's role as an officer of the company:
The petitioner argued that he was not an officer of the company at the time of the alleged offence, as he was serving as an adviser. The court noted that the definition of "officer" in section 2(30) of the Companies Act is inclusive and not exhaustive. The court decided that the determination of whether the petitioner was an officer would be better addressed during the trial when evidence could be presented regarding his duties and their binding nature on the board of directors.
5. Allegation of mala fide intent in filing the complaint:
The petitioner contended that the complaint was filed with mala fide intent to evict him from the premises. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the urgency in filing the complaint was due to the limitation period under section 468 of the Cr. PC. The court also observed that the mere background of civil suits did not indicate mala fide conduct by the complainant company.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the learned Magistrate had sufficient grounds to take cognizance of the offence under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act and to issue process. The petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction and his status as an officer were left open for detailed consideration during the trial. The rule was discharged, and the stay order was vacated, with records to be sent to the concerned court forthwith.
-
1983 (6) TMI 106
Issues:
- Appeal against confiscation of gold and wristwatches
- Allegations of concealment and penalty imposition
- Lack of opportunity to defend against concealment charge
- Circumstances justifying lenient view
- Decision on penalty and release of confiscated goods
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved the confiscation of six items of gold and three wristwatches valued at Rs. 20,297, along with a penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed on the appellant. The Customs authorities confiscated these items, alleging concealment, which was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in a previous order. The appellant contended that all items were declared and that there was no concealment, emphasizing the lack of opportunity to defend against the charge. The appellant, a defense officer's wife, arrived in India from Abu Dhabi with her brother and child, claiming the items were kept for security in her vanity bag, not concealed.
During the proceedings, the Department's representative argued that the appellant admitted to non-declaration before the Assistant Collector, justifying the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal noted the absence of electricity in the baggage hall at the time of arrival and the appellant's circumstances with an 8-month-old child. While acknowledging the lack of formal confrontation, the Tribunal held that the situation warranted a lenient view. Considering the appellant's travel from Abu Dhabi and the possibility of oversight due to exhaustion and a crying child, the Tribunal ordered the penalty of Rs. 2,000 to stand and released the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a condition for re-export within four months.
The Tribunal specifically addressed the appellant, Smt. Rachel Oommen, in the judgment, disposing of the appeal accordingly. Notably, no order was passed regarding the penalty imposed on Philip Chacko, the appellant's brother, as he did not appeal. The decision highlighted the unique circumstances of the case, balancing the penalty with the release of confiscated goods, considering the appellant's situation and the need for a compassionate approach in the adjudication process.
-
1983 (6) TMI 105
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 - retrospective effect.
2. Validity of the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
3. Cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 - retrospective effect
The main contention in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978, specifically whether it has retrospective effect. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise argued that the notification should not have retrospective effect, while Consultant Shri M.J. Trivedi for M/s. New Shorrock Mills contended that the notification does have retrospective effect based on the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980. The Tribunal examined the arguments and held that the peculiar circumstances, including the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, support the retrospective effect of the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda.
Issue 2: Validity of the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise filed the appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The appeal challenged the retrospective application of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978. The Tribunal found that the appeal lacked justification based on the legal position and the arguments presented by the parties. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Issue 3: Cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad
M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad filed a cross-objection in response to the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The cross-objection aimed to support the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and did not seek to alter any part of the order. However, the Tribunal deemed the cross-objection as misconceived and lacking validity. As a result, the Tribunal also dismissed the cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the retrospective effect of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978, dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, and rejected the cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad.
-
1983 (6) TMI 104
Issues:
1. Appeal against order refusing refund and balance retention in RG 23 account.
2. Dispute over duty payable on compound fertilizers pending in Supreme Court.
3. Interpretation of Rule 56A regarding lapsing of credits in RG 23 account.
4. Applicability of credit adjustment between RG 23 and PLA accounts.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a dispute regarding the treatment of balances in the RG 23 account of the appellants amounting to Rs. 28,02,965.32. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had decided that these balances should be treated as lapsed and refused refund, citing the absence of a provision to retain such balances or issue a refund. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal against his order. The appellants sought to retain the balance in RG 23 account to be adjusted against excise duty pending the Supreme Court's decision or for a refund under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The representative of the appellants highlighted the pending issue of duty payable on certain compound fertilizers before the Supreme Court. Specifically, in the case of N.P.K. 14-35-14, the appellants claimed exemption from excise duty, which was disputed by the department. The outcome of this dispute would impact the credits in the RG 23 account, especially concerning countervailing duty on imported rock phosphate. The appellants faced the potential liability of over Rs. 2 crores depending on the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the significance of retaining the credits in the account until the final determination of their duty liability.
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 56A and clarified that it does not mandate the automatic wiping out of credits in the RG 23 account when the finished product becomes non-dutiable. The Tribunal emphasized that in situations where the appellants might face substantial payment obligations, it is justifiable to maintain the credits in the account until the Supreme Court's decision on their liability is known. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)'s order and directed that the credits in the RG 23 account should be retained until the final resolution of the pending issues related to the compound fertilizers and the appellants' duty liability is determined.
The Tribunal also addressed various points raised by the appellants regarding credit payment in cash, the validity of their license, and the adjustment of credit amounts between the RG 23 and PLA accounts. However, the Tribunal concluded that these issues were not relevant for decision in light of the main issue concerning the treatment of credits in the RG 23 account and the pending duty dispute before the Supreme Court.
........
|
9911796707
