|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 111 Records
-
1973 (7) TMI 79 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t arise. Before the Tribunal attempt was made to bring the assessee s case within the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in The State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. 1958 9 S.T.C. 353 (S.C.). and a decision of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madras 1958 9 S.T.C. 687. The two cases were rightly distinguished by the Tribunal. 8.. Both the questions referred to this court have got to be answered in the affirmative and it has got to be held that the assessee was supplying medicines to his patients as a dealer within the meaning of the Act and on the facts and circumstances of this case, supply of medicines by him to his patients who visited his clinic for treatment amounted to sale. The reference is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the department. The latter must have its costs. Hearing fee one consolidated sum of Rs. 64 only. JHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (7) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as further mentioned in the contract with the foreign supplier that the supplies as per the latter contract are for M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Limited. The licence in favour of M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Limited clearly provided that the goods imported will be the property of the licence-holder at the time of clearance through the customs. From these an integral connection between the sale and the import is established. It is not possible for the assessee without committing a breach of contract to divert goods so imported for any other purpose. Therefore, applying the principles referred to above, it is seen that the transactions in these cases are really transactions in the course of import and are exempt from taxation. In the light of our conclusion that these transactions are sales in the course of import, we hold that the finding of the Tribunal is correct. The revision petitions are dismissed but in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 77 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries case 1960 11 S.T.C 827 (S.C.)., it was held that the price will be inclusive of the freight as neither the freight could be held to be not a part of the price nor could it be held to be separately charged by the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement case(1) was distinguished. I respectfully agree with the view of the Allahabad High Court. 14.. For the reasons stated above and on a due consideration of all the aspects involved in the question under reference, I have come to the conclusion that it must be decided in favour of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and against the assessee. It is accordingly held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the railway freight did not form part of the sale price. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs of this reference. S.K. JHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 76 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icate and that it arose under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act as soon as his gross turnover exceeded the limit fixed. There is no dispute that his liability did arise from 20th February, 1964. The registration certificate though issued on 16th June, 1965, had clearly mentioned that the liability arose with effect from 20th February, 1964. While filing the return and while presenting the case before the Assessing Authority, it was not suggested on behalf of the assessee that he had in any way been adversely affected by the delay in the issue of the registration certificate. Nor did the assessee pray for any relief being given on that ground. He could be assessed under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 11 of the Act, because he filed the return at a time when he was a registered dealer . We, therefore, answer the question referred in the affirmative. The department will have its costs of these proceedings from the assessee. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (7) TMI 75 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ell. Recently, in an appeal from a judgment of this court, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Central Zone, Ernakulam v. M/s. Kotak and Co., Bombay 1973 32 S.T.C. 6 (S.C.)., their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a transaction of sale entered into by making use of an actual user s import licence. In that case, their Lordships came to the conclusion that if the terms of the contract read along with the import licence and letter of authority precluded the importer from selling the goods to anybody other than the person with whom he has contracted to sell, such a transaction will be a sale in the course of import. The facts of this case clearly come within the scope of these decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal by the majority came to a correct conclusion in holding that the transaction is a sale in the course of import and not taxable. The revision petition is without merit. It is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 74 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , as framed, will have to be decided in favour of the assessee in so far as it must be held that even in the case of assessment to the best of judgment the dealer is legally entitled to get a deduction on account of sale of tax-free goods by estimate or otherwise. The second part of that question must be decided against the assessee and in favour of the department and it must be held that in the case of assessment to the best of judgment the dealer is not legally entitled to get any deduction by estimate on account of sale of tax-paid goods out of the turnover determined for the purpose of assessment without putting in documentary evidence for claiming such deduction. 22.. Though the assessee has succeeded on both the questions in Tax Case No. 28 of 1967 and partly in Tax Case No. 27 of 1968, in the circumstances of this case, I do not think that any costs should be awarded. There will, therefore, be no order for costs. UNTWALIA, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 73 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the stocks held by the dealer being made liable to purchase tax in the State and, therefore, the respondents are the last dealers in the State liable to tax under the Act. In our opinion, the contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted. The question of liability to tax under the Act has to be determined with reference to the state of law as it existed during the relevant assessment year and not with reference to the law in force during a subsequent period. If the law in force during the period of assessment, viz., 1st April, 1969, to 31st March, 1970, is correctly applied in accordance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the stock in hand with the dealers on 31st March, 1970, had not acquired the quality of being the last purchases inside the State. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, was correct. For the reasons stated above, these revision petitions fail and are dismissed, but without costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The court, therefore, raised the presumption that the assessee would not have parted with the goods unless the purchaser agreed to pay mahimai. The facts of that case are, therefore, distinguishable. There was evidence in that case to show that the amount was charged as sale price. The decision in Vimalchand Prakashchand, Sarafa, Ujjain v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh 1968 22 S.T.C. 22. also does not help Mr. Desai, because the court there found that the amounts collected by way of bank commission, charity, insurance, etc., were recovered as sale price under agreement between the parties. The result is that we answer the question referred to us that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, postage, trunk-call charges and bank charges included in the sale bills should not be added to the turnover of the sales of the opponent during the Samvat Year 2024. The applicant to pay the costs of the opponent. Orders accordingly. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 71 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... i-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances . The above observation of the Supreme Court equally applies to cases of imposition of penalty under sub-section (2) of section 12-B of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be supported and accordingly, we allow this writ petition and quash the order of penalty (exhibit D) dated 20th July, 1972, reserving liberty to respondent 1 to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. It is ordered accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 70 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d a penalty of Rs. 689.25 is levied under section 10A of the C.S.T. Act, 1956. There is no finding that the petitioner falsely represented when purchasing the goods in question that such goods are covered by his certificate of registration. In that view there is a clear error of law in the order made by the 2nd respondent. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, was also dismissed without recording a finding to the same effect. In that view the proper order to make is to quash the impugned order dated 17th November, 1964, made by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 19th July, 1969, made by the 1st respondent, reserving liberty to the 2nd respondent to make fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. If the penalty has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall he refunded to him. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50. Ordered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 69 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the appeal was not maintainable, Thereafter the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, who also rejected the same on the ground that it was not maintainable. 2.. In this revision petition the assessee has challenged the decision of the Tribunal and the contention urged is that the order dated 29th September, 1969, is appealable falling under section 20(1) of the Act. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to determine whether an order fixing the compounding fee is appealable or not. What was done by the order dated 29th September, 1969, was to drop the proceedings in view of the fact that the assessee agreed to compound the offence and paid the compounding fee. By the dropping of the proceedings, the assessee cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. Therefore, the authorities below were right in the view they have taken that the order dated 29th September, 1969, was not appealable. Accordingly, this S.T.R.P. is dismissed, but without costs.
-
1973 (7) TMI 68 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ttar Pradesh(1) has held that penalty is not validated in such circumstances. It is to be remembered that what is sought to be recovered is penalty and not tax. When the assessment was quashed by this court and it was subsequently validated by an Act of Legislature and further when there were difference of opinion even in this court on the question whether the assessment order is automatically validated when it was quashed earlier and it was only as a result of the Full Bench decision rendered on 15th September, 1972(2), it was held that the assessment order is automatically validated, in our opinion, penalty cannot be levied. Therefore, though the ground given by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the application cannot be sustained, the order dismissing the application can be sustained on the ground that there cannot be an order of penalty in the circumstances of the case. In this view, the sales tax revision petition is dismissed, but without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (7) TMI 67 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be assessed to tax before the assessing authority, he is not estopped or precluded by any law from preferring an appeal and showing to the appellate authority that the sales are, in fact, not exigible to tax. If such a contention is taken, the appellate authority is under a duty to examine the matter and determine the question whether or not the sales are exigible to tax. There is no question of invoking the doctrine of estoppel. In our opinion, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as also the Tribunal have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. We, therefore, a how this revision petition, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gulbarga Division, Bellary, with a direction to restore the petitioner s appeal to his original file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s being so, hair clippers would be taxable under the aforesaid notification. The Additional judge (Revisions), while holding that hair clippers do not fall in the category of machinery , has adverted to the fact that they are not known as such in common parlance or in the trade circle. There does not appear to be any evidence on the record for this conclusion, and neither have we been referred to any trade journal or any other standard publication in which hair clippers are not classified as machinery in the trade circle. We are also unable to agree with the view of the additional revising authority that hair clippers are not termed in common parlance as machinery, as normally all mechanical contrivances are generally understood to be items of machinery. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. In view of the partial success and failure of the parties, they shall bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (7) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bolts manufactured by the assessee for sewing machines and hair clippers were parts of machinery or an item of hardware, he held that nuts and bolts manufactured for sewing machines were parts of machinery inasmuch as sewing machines fell within the category of machinery, while nuts and bolts manufactured and sold for hair clippers were to be treated as hardware inasmuch as hair clippers were not machinery . In S.T.R. No. 860 of 1971-Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. M/s. Chandok Traders, Allahabad(1) (decided by us today), we have held that hair clippers are machinery, and inasmuch as nuts and bolts manufactured by the dealer are parts of hair clippers, they have as such to be treated as machinery parts and taxed as such. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the department. The department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (7) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. 5. In this case, as the assessee has retained the right of disposal, he cannot be said to have parted with the title to the goods before the goods were actually taken delivery of by the purchasers. Admittedly, in this case, the out-of-State dealers took delivery of the goods only after 2nd April, 1964. Therefore, the sale by the assessee to the out-of-State dealers can be said to have been completed only after 2nd April, 1964, when the purchasing dealers had registered themselves under the Act. On the facts of this case, we are, therefore, clear that the sales by the assessee were to registered dealers and such registered dealers have given the C form declarations as required under the Act. In our view, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. 6. The tax case is, therefore, allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150.
-
1973 (7) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... ers are in favour of the scheme of amalgamation and in view of the tea industry, where expansion is called for, prima facie I do not find anything not feasible nor unworkable in the scheme. It is true that the actual workability of the scheme has not been demonstrated. But the prospects are there, of better and economic management and expansion and development of the industry and the majority of the shareholders have approved the scheme. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I will make an order in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c ), (d) and (e) except that I direct that the rate of exchange should be 15 shares of Jalpaiguri Tea Co. Ltd. in exchange of two shares of Bijoynagar Tea Co. Ltd. Subject to the modification above, the scheme of amalgamation is sanctioned. Petitioner s counsel undertakes not to take any steps whatsoever for a period of three weeks from date except giving requisition to have this order drawn up. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
-
1973 (7) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Baggage - Transit Passenger - Declaration - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... respect of his brief case, which he did not make a clean breast of by placing it on the table along with the suitcase. The departmental officer noticing it pointed it to the appellant and it was only then that he came forward with the truth. This fact coupled with the fact that the goods were not declared by the appellant at the Colombo airport and that he was resorting to a circuitious route might well furnish the basis for the departmental finding that the appellant intended to smuggle the goods. Kailasam, J. sitting as he did in certiorari, could not possibly say that this finding was not supported by evidence. Unless the goods were declared, the provisions of Section 80 would not be attracted and they would be liable to duty. The intention of the appellant apparently was to try and then take the goods out. That was the approach of the Department. Considering all the facts we cannot say that this approach was wholly unfounded. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1973 (7) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Adjudication proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... n to participate in the enquiry on the strength of his alleged ownership of the goods. If so, then obviously the petitioner can go to the Customs Authorities and plead his own case of ownership without arming himself with an authority from the Calcutta firm to do so. Shri Lahiri agrees that his client would now approach the Customs Authorities for asserting his ownership to the goods in his own right. Therefore we direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the enquiry on the strength of his own right and without insisting that he must come through the Calcutta firm. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms. We make no order as to costs. 2. The rights of the petitioner, we make it clear, to claim back the seized goods on the footing that no notice under section 124(a) of the Customs Act has been served on him within six months from the date of seizure is very much intact and he can exercise the same in terms of law. The stay order stands vacated.
-
1973 (7) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... d consider whether a case for remission of duty was made out. The approach to the exercise of discretion in the case of remission of duty is entirely different from the approach in the case of granting licence or conferring a right and so on. It is not necessary in the former case to give detailed reasons as to why the Collector is granting remission and how he arrived at the quantum of remission. This is not a case where the Collector has refused to exercise his discretion. This is a case where the Collector has, in fact, exercised his discretion. But it is argued that the discretion has not been exercised by applying his mind and that he has not given adequate reasons for exercising the discretion in that manner he did. I am satisfied that there are sufficient indications to show that the discretion was not arbitrary and I am not willing to interfere with the exercise of that discretion. 13. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
|
