|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 497 Records
-
2005 (6) TMI 536 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on like the petitioner gets a lesser relief under the Scheme than what other persons who opt for the Scheme and make payment thereafter. Such a person should not be further penalised, called upon to pay further amount by an erroneous understanding as is sought to be placed by the authority. Endorsement issued at annexure G is definitely not in consonance with the terms, object and intention of the Scheme. The authorities have unnecessarily declined the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the endorsement - annexure G, is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents directing that the amount that had been deposited by the petitioner earlier is to be treated as the amount required to be deposited by the petitioner for availing the benefit in terms of condition No. 7 and that the petitioner shall be given the benefit of waiver in respect of the balance. Rule issued made absolute. Petition allowed with costs quantified at a sum of Rs. 5,000.
-
2005 (6) TMI 535 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... will have to pay the tax in time including additional sales tax. Since the assessee had availed of a facility for his convenience, for the delayed payment of additional sales tax he has necessarily to pay interest. If this facility was not availed of, the department would have got sales tax in time. In this connection we may refer to section 23(3) of the Act which says that if the tax or any other amount accrued or due under this Act is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time prescribed therefor, in this Act or in any rule made thereunder, and in other cases within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand, the dealer or other person shall pay, by way of interest, in the manner prescribed for the delayed payment and therefore the assessee is bound to pay the interest. We therefore find no infirmity in the view expressed by the authorities below as well as the learned single judge. Writ appeal therefore lacks merits and the same would stand dismissed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 534 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n d of section 86 of the VAT Act, we dispose of this application with a direction on the petitioner to approach the authority above the officer passing the impugned order of seizure within seven days from this date for getting appropriate remedy, if any. If the petitioner approaches such statutory authority, the statutory authority who is to dispose of the penalty proceeding, shall, after hearing the petitioner in full, dispose of the legality and illegality of the seizure also as made by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. In the meantime, pending disposal of the said application to be filed before the statutory authority, the seized goods be released on furnishing security of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 25,000 being in cash and Rs. 25,000 being bank guarantee which is to be renewed from time to time as per law. The security shall abide by the final order of the statutory authority. 5.. With this observation this petition is disposed of. We make no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.
-
2005 (6) TMI 533 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 01 122 STC 316) observed as follows When the petitioners are required to pay additional tax by virtue of retrospective provisions of law, they cannot be debarred from collecting the same, more so, when they are to collect from the other department of the Government. It is, therefore, provided that the above directions shall also cover the present cases and the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the above directions, but they will be liable to pay the tax as assessed by the concerned authorities. 19.. The instant case is squarely covered by the case reported in 2006 143 STC 657 (Gauhati) (2000) 3 GLT 52 (R.L. Roy and Co. v. State of Tripura) as well as the order dated February 24, 1989 passed by the division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No. 2 of 979 (Shri Binayendra Lal Roy v. State of Tripura 2001 122 STC 316) and thus in the line of direction given by the two judgments mentioned above, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2005 (6) TMI 532 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... answer in the factual backdrop of the present case being in the affirmative, it cannot be held that the seizure was legal or justified. 15.. On behalf of the petitioner it was indicated that there had been a steady reduction in the amount of penalty at various stages of the proceeding. Be that as it may, considering all such facts and circumstances, we are unable to agree with the view of the learned Tribunal. As such, the present application being W.P.T.T. No. 6 of 2005 succeeds and the impugned order dated April 13, 2005 passed in R.N. No. 164 of 2005 be set aside. 16.. Order of seizure dated August 16, 2004 and subsequent orders dated August 17, 2004, August 20, 2004, February 24, 2005 and April 13, 2005 passed at various stages also stand set aside. 17.. No order as to costs. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties on urgent basis after due compliance with the formalities. ALOKE CHAKRABARTY, J. - I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 531 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessing officer, the court would have taken the contempt proceedings. The assessing officer is performing the quasi-judicial function and her performance is judiciously reviewable by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the court orders for certain files, it is the duty of the assessing officer to produce the files before this Court. The attitude of the assessing officer above referred would clearly prove that the assessing officer is passing indiscriminate orders to her whims and fancies. The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department and the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department are hereby directed to take appropriate action for the dilly-dallying of the respondent-assessing officer and in the view of this Court, the officer may be kept outside the assessment circle of the department. With this observation, the writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 530 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... They interpret words of statutes their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In saying so, their Lordships quoted Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham 1971 2 All ER 1267 One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russel, L.J., as if it were an Act of Parliament. and Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board 1972 1 All ER 749 (HL) There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. In the result, the impugned exhibit P7 is quashed. The assessing authority will proceed to consider the matter afresh after affording the petitioner such opportunity as the situation demands, in the views of the assessing authority. A final decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (6) TMI 529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view of the passing of Act 34 of 2004, though the same has not been notified. We are informed that the Special Tribunal is nonfunctional and hence, the matter cannot now obviously go back to the Special Tribunal. 7.. The petitioner had a right of appeal under section 36 of the Act and therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we direct that if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided expeditiously thereafter. However, we make it clear that the petitioner will have to comply with the conditions of pre-deposit as laid down in section 36 of the Act as existed in the relevant assessment year and then only his appeal will be heard by the Tribunal. 8.. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P. M.P. No. 21051 of 2003 is closed. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (6) TMI 528 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unctory. In the words of the learned Tribunal it is biased and motivated . We find it difficult to hold that the step against the respondent in the backdrop of the present case was not harsh and certainly it was not done following the principles of natural justice. 18.. Considering all these aspects we find little merit in the grievances as ventilated on behalf of the present petitioner/State authorities. 19.. Accordingly, the impugned order dated August 28, 2002, passed in R.N. Case No. 235 of 2002 stands affirmed and the present application being W.P.T.T. No. 954 of 2004 be dismissed on contest. 20.. No order as to costs. 21.. This, however, does not take away the right of the present petitioner authorities to initiate suitable proceeding in accordance with law. 22.. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis, of course, after due compliance with the necessary formalities. 23. ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. - I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 527 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ise any question in respect of rate of tax on any goods. Therefore, the request, if any, made by a dealer is not necessarily to be entertained by the Commissioner since no such right is conferred. 11.. Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, made an attempt to contend that the first respondentCommissioner is likely to deviate from the earlier orders passed by him and take a different view and may impose tax at the rate of 12 per cent instead of 4 per cent. 12.. We do not propose to express any opinion whatsoever since the authority is yet to pass an assessment order in accordance with law. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all the objections including the contentions raised in this writ petition so far as the merits are concerned, which shall be considered by the assessing authority in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. 13.. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 526 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uted is one in the inaction of the assessing officer in not having passed the order at the appropriate time. So long as the order sought to be revised in itself does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, such a matter cannot be made subject-matter for revision under section 21 of the Act, even assuming for argument sake, the order resulted in some loss of revenue. 14.. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order No. KST SMR-I/1/2003-04 dated July 19, 2004 under annexure D passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Malnad Division, Shimoga, respondent No. 2 herein is not sustainable. It is accordingly quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. Rule issued and made absolute. Writ petition allowed. 15.. Consequently, it is directed that if the assessee has paid the taxes in terms of the order which is now quashed, the respondents are bound to refund the same to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 525 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sessee will furnish the same to the Assessing Officer for verification. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains in the light of the above observations.That leaves us with the Revenue s grievance that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should not have accepted a plea which was not taken at the stage of assessment and which would result in the assessee being assessed at an income which is lower than the returned income. This controversy is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT 1991 187 ITR 688, and it has to be held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has the powers to consider the additional ground raised by the assessee for the first time at the appellate stage. The Revenue s appeal fails on this issue as well.In the result, while the assessee s appeal is allowed in the terms initiated above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 524 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
SSI exemption - Option to avail exemption ... ... ... ... ..... d the same would be eligible since the assessee had filed a declaration under Rule 173B on 1-4-99 and it was for the department to have objected. We find no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the CCE (A). No proforma option for filing is prescribed in the notification. The issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. Since no procedure is prescribed as regards manner of exercising the option, we cannot even find a procedural irregularity in availing of the exemption by filing a declaration under Rule 173B. No merits are found in the Revenue rsquo s appeal. The same is dismissed. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 523 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... rket. If that be so, ldquo M and M rdquo would squarely fit in the definition of brand name/trade name given under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., as it is an admitted fact that the brand name represented a connection between Shri V.M.S. Midha rsquo s business Midha and Midha and the goods which he dealt-in. Thus it could be found that the appellants were clearing their products under a brand name of another person who was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Their branded clearances were hit by the bar contained in Para 4 of the notification. Consequently, SSI exemption was not available to the goods cleared by the appellant under the brand name ldquo M and M rdquo during the period of dispute. 6. emsp We have perused the circular relied on in the held by the Apex Court in CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Packwell Traders - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). 7. emsp In the result, the impugned order is, sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 522 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Re-export - Extension of warehousing period ... ... ... ... ..... . 3/2003, dated 14-1-2003 laying down that even where the warehouse period is expired, importer can still make a request for re-export of the goods in terms of section 69 of the Customs Act and such request may be allowed even if permitted period for bonding has expired and demand notice has been issued or it has been decided to put the goods under auction. However, before permitting re-export, it is necessary to extend the period of warehousing under Section 61 of the Customs Act. Ld. Advocate submits that he may be allowed to re-approach the Chief Commissioner once again with a prayer to extend the warehousing period and to allow the re-export of the goods, which would be more practicable approach to both sides. 3. emsp In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and direct the appellant to approach the office of Chief Commissioner for the purpose of extending the warehousing period and then to decide on the prayer for re-export. Appeals are disposed in above terms
-
2005 (6) TMI 521 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Appeal - Additional ground ... ... ... ... ..... e tanks were not shown to be covered by any of the clauses (a) to (c). 8. emsp Ld. Counsel has raised an alternative plea on the basis of the Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench decision in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. (supra). The basis of this plea is that the storage tanks are part of the sugar-manufacturing plant and hence the M.S. plates etc. used in the fabrication of these tanks should be held to have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of sugar. I cannot accept this factual plea which was not raised at the original level. Moreover, if the plea is accepted, even measuring equipments used in connection with removal of molasses from the tanks can claim Modvat credit. The Modvat scheme cannot be stretched like this. 9. emsp In the result, the impugned orders disallowing Modvat credit on M.S. plates etc. used in the fabrication of storage tanks for molasses during the period of dispute are upheld and these appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2005 (6) TMI 520 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... 622 (Tri.) 2001 (47) R.L.T. 787 (CEGAT-LB) . 2. emsp However, on hearing both sides, we agree with the contention of respondent that the decision of the larger bench, which is concerning the credit on inputs, is not applicable to the present case for the reason that Rule 57T(3) provides the credit can be availed on inputs on any documents used for sale or removal of excisable goods (GP1 in the instant case) while under Rule 57G, credit could be taken on inputs during the relevant period only on the strength on an invoice issued under Rule 52A. 3. emsp We, therefore, see no merit on the appeal and uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
2005 (6) TMI 519 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... al. Notification Nos. 214/86 and No. 217/86 were enabling notifications issued to avoid clerical work of payment and of duly and taking of credit, when goods were being consumed within the premises or sent out to another premises on job work. The notifications having been issued to supplement and enable the implementation of the provisions of the Modvat procedure rules cannot be a cause to deny Modvat credit. We find no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order in having found the mutuality in the two notifications and pari materia Rule 57C and Rule 57R. 4. emsp We also find that there is no valid ground to deny the benefit of capital goods credit to M/s ACGL as arrived at by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and in view of grounds taken before us and transfer of the same as per law is allowed. 5. emsp In view of the findings arrived, no merits are found in Revenues appeal and the same is required to be rejected and assessee appeal to be allowed. 6. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (6) TMI 518 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ jurisdiction against revision notices issued by Dy. Commissioner - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... udgment has been doubted by a co-ordinate Bench of the Supreme Court and has been referred to a Larger Bench. In this view of the matter, the impugned notices are bad. 3. emsp We fail to appreciate the argument made by the learned Senior Counsel. Whether A judgment applies to the facts or judgment B and what is the effect of a doubt having been expressed by the Supreme Court about the latest judgment of the Supreme Court are matters that can be agitated before the authority who has issued the notice. We have, however, no doubt in our mind that on the basis of law of precedents, the latest judgment of the Supreme Court would apply and not an order of reference made by another Bench expressing doubt about the judgment, unless the judgment is held to be bad by a Larger Bench. With these observations, we dispose of the writ petitions. The petitioner is, however, entitled to take all pleas available to it before the respondent and it is granted four weeks time to file objections.
-
2005 (6) TMI 517 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Delay in filing appeal ... ... ... ... ..... in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the resident Engineer of the appellant company who was handling the excise matter was transferred to Jamnagar and the papers relating to the appeal was misplaced in transit and mixed up with some construction file. This reason was not found sufficient by the lower Appellate Authority for condoning the delay. We agree that the above does not constitute satisfactory explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and uphold the same and dismiss the appeal.
........
|
