|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 257 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... presented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Madras South Division, Madras v. Hihard Products, Madras-44), T.C. No. 1430 of 1982, dated September 26, 1991, wherein this Court dismissed the tax case preferred by the department, by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal, which held that adhesives are not chemicals. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in levying tax at 4 per cent, by not treating the adhesives as chemical. In that view of the matter, this tax case (revision) filed by the department is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 302 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uine. The sales tax number mentioned in the invoice by the S.K. Traders is NIC-5402 and the letter makes it clear that the said number has been allotted to M/s. Abdul Hussain Karimbhoy and not to S.K. Traders. It is, therefore, obvious that the documents produced by the respondents in support of the relief claimed in the petition are not genuine. In these circumstances, in our judgment, the learned Judge was in error in relying upon the uncorroborated claim of the respondent that the goods found in the vehicle were the goods of the respondents and which were in transit from Bombay to Madras. In our judgment, the respondents were not entitled to any relief and the petition ought to have been dismissed. 8.. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated September 13, 1990 is set aside and W.P. No. 5 of 1990 filed by the respondents stand dismissed. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellant throughout. Writ appeal allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 301 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be reduced by the amount of tax paid, if any, under the law relating to general sales tax in force in that Union Territory or State. If the purchasers produce any receipt or document to show that they had paid tax under the general sales tax in force in the State or Union Territory from where they purchased the vehicle, the purchasers are definitely entitled to get reduction of that amount. That is a matter to be considered by the assessing authority. We are told that the assessing authorities are not giving deduction of tax to purchasers. If the purchasers produce bills or other documentary evidence evidencing the payment of tax in the State or Union Territory from where they purchased the vehicle, the assessing authority shall give credit to that amount and only the balance amount shall be recovered under section 3 of the Entry Tax Act. With the above observation, we dispose of all these original petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT
Demands for excise duty on the wastage of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) which was exported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Demands made for excise duty on wastage, during transportation in containers, of high strength spirit, of 80 to 85%, from distillery to warehouse.
Demand of excise duty on obscuration
Excise duty sought to be levied on pipeline wastage
Held that:- The appeals are allowed only insofar as they relate to the levy of excise duty upon the wastage of Indian made foreign liquor exported outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The judgments and orders of the High Court in so far as they hold that the State has no power to levy excise duty upon such wastage are set aside. For the rest, the appeals are dismissed and the judgments and orders under appeal upheld.
-
1995 (8) TMI 299 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... otherwise entitled to the same under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 25.. Whether any of the petitioners is dealer under the Act or not is a question of fact to be determined by the authorities under the Act, keeping in view the materials placed before them. Therefore, this Court cannot make any pronouncement in this regard in view of the limited scope of writ jurisdiction. Such questions are to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act which provide for effective remedies in this regard. 26.. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a declaration that only such petitioners will be liable to pay entry tax on motor vehicles brought by them into the respective local areas who are dealers within the meaning of clause (4) of section 2 of the present Act. Consequently, persons not falling in that category will be exempt from payment of entry tax in terms of section 28 of the Act. 27.. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 298 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal 1995 98 STC 24 (P and H) and having taken a note of the facts of this case, we find sufficient justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Authority should be restrained from realising the amount of penalty by encashment of bank guarantee till the decision of the stay application filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 4.. We, therefore, direct the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala, to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioner under section 20(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 within fifteen days of the submission of certified copy of this order. Till then respondent No. 2 is restrained from taking any coercive action for the recovery of the penalty by way of encashment of bank guarantee or otherwise. 5.. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. A copy of this order be given dasti on payment. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 297 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the Act )? 2.. The Commissioner finds that the record showed that these commodities were used as supplementary diets to the poultry in combination with the other suitable ingredients necessary for the manufacture of poultry feeds. He does not find that they are used for any other purpose. In the circumstances, these special appeals are covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the division Benches of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Tirumalagiri Traders, Gudiwada 1989 73 STC 237 (1989) 8 APSTJ 246, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Balaji Poultry Agencies, Gudiwada 1991 82 STC 353 (1991) 12 APSTJ 147 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. J.K. and Company 1993 89 STC 350 (1992) 15 APSTJ 166. 3.. In the result, the special appeals are allowed. No costs. The turnover relating to the said goods shall be subjected only to 1 per cent tax as they fall under entry 80 of the First Schedule to the Act. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 296 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... otice under section 40 of the Act, is legal, valid and according to law and (vi) The impugned notice of assessment and demand under sections 28, 29, 31 and 33 of the Act in so far as it directs the payments of the purchase tax is legal, valid and according to law. However, the petitioners are held not liable to pay the amount of interest as specified in the said notice of assessment and demand. The Assessing Authority shall afresh determine the liability of the petitioners to pay the interest in terms of sub-section (5) of section 25 of the Act but the interest shall be imposed only from the date of notice of assessment and demand notwithstanding any interim stay granted by any court in the State of Haryana. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 6071, 6073, 6072, 7572, 6074,7575, 7576,7578, 13981, 7574 of 1993, 11422, 14755 of 1994 and 1996 of 1995 stand disposed of in the above terms. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 295 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cher and pay back the amount along with interest for the delay in refunding the same. A sum of Rs. 2,18,500 which had been deposited by the petitioner on August 20, 1993, was refunded to the petitioner by the respondents vide their office memo No. 2340 dated July 31, 1995. But the respondents have not been able to justify their action for withholding the amount after acceptance of the appeals of the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the payment of interest, as stipulated in the rules, on the amount wrongly withheld by the respondents despite acceptance of the appeals Since the amount deposited by the petitioner already stands refunded, no direction can be issued for its refund. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the statutory interest, as per rules applicable, on the amount wrongly withheld by them, from the date the appeals of the petitioner were allowed till the date of payment. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 294 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the French company. The entire raw material was supplied by the French company and the finished goods are to be sold on behalf of Government of India. The value of the supplies were adjusted against the advance received from Government of India. The interest accrued on the advance was not appropriated by the company. The goods imported under collaboration agreement vested with Government of India. Therefore, the cumulative effect of all the transactions would clearly indicate that the Government of India is the owner of the property and the property never passed on to the appellant-company. It was only an intermediary functionary to manufacture instruments, and effect sales on behalf of the Government of India. Hence, it has to be necessarily held a case of contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale. The order of the Tribunal cannot be held to be illegal or erroneous. For the reasons stated above, the revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 293 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a delay of 25 days or 48 days as assumed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Though the Tribunal had remanded the matters on an incorrect reasoning, we are confirming the order of remand for the reasons abovementioned and direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law in the light of our observations contained in this judgment. Those two tax cases, viz., T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992 filed by the Revenue have to be dismissed. 27.. In all these tax cases except in T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992, the orders of the Tribunal are set aside, thus restoring the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the respective appeals are barred by limitation. All the tax cases except T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992 are allowed. T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992 are dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. All petitions except T.C. Nos. 1483 and 1484 of 1992 allowed. T.C. Nos. 1483 nd 1484 dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 292 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n T.R.C. Nos. 70 and 52 of 1989 the assessee questioned the finding of the Tribunal upholding the tax on the turnover relating to the last purchase of mica within the State by the assessee which was transferred out of the State to Giridih in Bihar during the two assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The contention of the assessee is that mica was only transferred from this State to Bihar and it continued to be its property. But when that mica goes out of the State the purchases in respect of that mica become the last purchases by the assessee within the State at the close of the relevant assessment years and therefore the said last purchases were attracted to sales tax. It is not the case of the assessee that the said mica taken out of the State was brought back subsequently. Therefore, we do not find any error in the Tribunal upholding the tax on the turnover relating to such last purchases. In the result, the tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 291 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ons I, III, V and VII discloses that wherever levy of tax is exempted in respect of the goods referred to therein, exclusion from the levy is confined to the levy of tax under section 5 only, or the levy of tax under a particular item. Explanation VIII stands by itself in the matter of the language used in the legislation, by not restricting the exempted tax to any particular section or item. This is a strong circumstance justifying the claim of the petitioners that the exemption from the levy of tax provided for by explanation VIII is an exemption from the levy of tax under the Act and not merely the levy of tax under section 5. 8.. As the notification relied on, does not exempt turnover tax levied under section 6-B, petitioner s contention is liable to be rejected. The impugned order of assessment is in accordance with law. Consequently, the petition is rejected. Sri S. Subbanna, learned H.C.G.P. is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 290 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed imposition of penalty. From the undisputed facts and the circumstances of the case, it becomes apparent that the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner was mere a formality and mechanical ritual. That being so, the impugned order of imposing penalty is vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and of being heard and, as such, cannot be sustained. 14.. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated May 24, 1995 (annexure 4), imposing penalty on the petitioner, is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pass order afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. Respondents are further directed to release the petitioner s goods so seized, on May 24, 1995, on his furnishing any mode of security as contemplated under rule 39 of the Rules. GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J.I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 289 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is hereby allowed with costs of this writ petition assessed at Rs. 2,500 payable by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. A writ of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the judgment and order dated February 2, 1994, passed by Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, in Second Appeal No. 193 of 1993 (92-93) and also the order dated January 18, 1993, passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Saharanpur in Case No. 1186, imposing penalty of Rs. 55,500 on the petitioner under section 13-A(4) of the Act. It is hereby further directed that the respondent No. 2 shall refund the sum of Rs. 55,500 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The amounts of costs, penalty and interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 288 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wheat products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., in one kilogram polythene bags which were sealed by mechanical device. The containers are so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. Therefore, we hold that the sealed polythene bags in which the wheat products like atta, maida, sooji, etc., were sold are sealed containers and therefore, the sale turnover of the assessee in all the assessment years under consideration are liable to be taxed at the rate of 3 per cent treating them as sales in sealed containers. Thus considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the polythene bags containing one kilogram atta, maida, sooji, etc., are not sold in sealed containers. 18.. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the revisions stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 287 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vation of the Tribunal may be inconsistent with the other observation of the Tribunal pointed out above, namely, Revenue has not made out any case to the effect that the freight and forwarding charges formed part of the sale price of the goods . But even assuming that the abovesaid freight and forwarding charges did not form part of the sale price of the goods, since the goods falls under the latter part of the abovesaid definition and particularly the abovesaid exclusion clause, therein, necessarily the abovesaid freight and forwarding charges should be excluded from the term sale price and hence not chargeable to tax. The abovesaid legal principles have also been explained in our judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Cauvery Cotton Trading Company in T.C. No. 70 of 1989 dated July 10, 1995 . Therefore, the decision arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this tax case (revision) by the Revenue, is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 286 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntent to deceive or to perpetrate some treachery or fraud . We are now dealing with a provision levying penalty for the issue of false declaration and, therefore, false in section 15-A(1)(1) would not merely mean untrue or incorrect and it is necessary that there should be lying intent. The circumstances of this case do not disclose any such intent and what is apparent is that the assessee as well as the assessing officer were under a wrong impression that the dealer was authorised to issue the forms in question. In my view, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in upholding the levy of penalty and in the circumstances of the case no penalty under section 15-A(1)(1) of the Act was justified. For the above reasons, the revision petition is allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order dated November 8, 1993 it is ordered that the dealer s Second Appeal No. 313 of 1991 for the assessment year 1985-86 stands allowed and the penalty in question stands quashed. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 285 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s machineries, they would only fall under entry 81. On this aspect, learned counsel for the assessee submits that not all machineries would come under entry 81, but only machineries worked by (1) electricity, (2) diesel or petrol, (3) furnace oil, (4) kerosene, (5) coal including charcoal, or (6) any other form of fuel or power, would come under entry 81. In other words, according to him, the jig bushes are machineries, which are not worked by any one of the above referred to six fuel items. 3.. But, there is absolutely no factual proof or material to hold so. So, even assuming that the abovesaid jig bushes are machineries, the assessee, having not proved that they are worked by a different device other than mentioned in entry 81, only a single point levy could be levied under entry 81 and not multi-point levy, as contended by the assessee. So, on this point, this tax case has to be dismissed. 4.. Accordingly this tax case revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 284 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as included within the entry No. 4 of the notification dated September 7, 1981 (supra) and as such the glass shells have been rightly declared as unclassified item attracting a lower rate of tax at 8 per cent. The Tribunal has followed the well-settled principle of interpretation as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court and by various decisions of this Court. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. I answer the question that the glass shells manufactured and sold in semi-finished form by the opposite party to other manufacturers for manufacturing the bulbs are not included in entry No. 4 of the notification dated September 7, 1981 (supra) and are treated as unclassified item. The opposite party is liable to pay tax on glass shells only as unclassified item. The Tribunal has rightly given the benefit of lower rate of tax. No interference is called for in this revision. In the result the revision is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
