|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 65 Records
-
1958 (9) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1956 etc., we have to hold that there was no element of sale in the work carried out by the assessee on behalf of the customers in retreading old tyres. They may be contracts for carrying out works. But there was no element of sale. In the absence of sale there can be no liability to pay sales tax. The levy of the sales tax on this amount will be set aside. That was all the subject-matter of the revision petition. The revision petition is allowed to this extent. No order as to costs. Petition Partly allowed. Since reported as Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madras 1958 9 S.T.C. 687.
-
1958 (9) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee to the customers. The principles on which the question has to be decided, whether there was any element of sale in a given works contract, have been explained by us in our judgment in T.R.C. Nos. 233 to 236 of 1956Since reported as Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madras 1958 9 S.T.C. 687., on the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley 1958 9 S.T.C. 353. The assessments are set aside, and the petitions are allowed with costs in T.R.C. No. 167 of 1956. Counsel s fee Rs. 100.
-
1958 (9) TMI 69 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... received from persons in whose favour it is issued. 5.. For that the appellant has actually in the returns submitted to the Chief Controller of Prices, Bihar, shown the amount of sugar to have been sold during the month the permit was received. The question of law involved in this case is exactly similar to that involved in Miscellaneous judicial Case No. 5 of 1956 , and for the reasons elaborately given in that case I hold that, in the circumstances of the case, the despatches of sugar made by the assessee to various States outside the State of Bihar are liable to be taxed under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. I would accordingly answer the question of law referred by the Board of Revenue in favour of the State of Bihar and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250. KANHAIYA SINGH, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly. Since reported as Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar v. New India Sugar Mills, Darbhanga 1959 (10 S.T.C. 74).
-
1958 (9) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test. It is apparent that where the form of prayer did not use the very words but the substance is clear that a modification or setting aside the assessment is sought for, the plaintiff assessee has to seek the remedy provided under sections 11 and 12 to 12-D of the Act, which is a self-contained Act and prescribes a special machinery for the redress of the grievance. Therefore, the declaration sought for in this case cannot be regarded as having any relevancy except as leading up to the claim for repayment. Therefore, the learned Advocate for the appellant has not succeeded in taking this case out of the purview of the heirarchy of tribunals constituted for this purpose under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It has been rightly held by both the courts below, that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. This second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave. Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 67 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ccessive dealers as may be prescribed. It cannot be contended that the same advantage was sought to be conferred even on unlicensed dealers. That being the position, we think that under rule 16(2)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, the dealer from whom the tax is to be levied is the last licensed dealer and not the last unlicensed dealer. Admittedly, the persons to whom the goods were sold by the petitioners were unlicensed persons. Therefore, the department was justified in collecting tax from the petitioners in respect of their sales to persons who exported the goods to the Madras State. On this discussion, it follows that the order under revision cannot be successfully impugned. The revision petitions are dismissed with costs. The advocate s fee is fixed as below T.R.C. No. 59 of 1956Rs. 50 T.R.C. No. 60 of 1956-Rs. 150 T.R.C. No. 61 of 1956-Rs. 100 T.R.C. No. 64 of 1956-Rs. 150 and T.R.C. No. 65 of 1956-Rs. 50. Petitions dismissed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 66 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsumer. Shri Vidyasagar invites us to hold that the Government Orders extracted above should be read together and that the exemption granted in the earlier Government Order, (i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 2333, Revenue, 7th September, 1951), still continues to be in force. We do not think we can give effect to this contention. Surely, when the second Government Order says that it was issued in supersession of the prior one, the first Government Order is abrogated. The second Government Order does not seek to wipe out the exemption altogether, but confines it to sales by the co-operative societies to other institutions. The exemption is withdrawn only in regard to sales of milk to the actual consumers. In other words, in so far as the exemption bears on the sales to the consumers, the earlier exemption is rescinded. The submission of Shri Vidyasagar is, therefore, inadmissible. In the result, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 65 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... receipt of the sale price thereof by the appellants in regard to the goods in question and under those circumstances the sale price thereof could not be included in the gross turnover of the appellants....... These are the various features which distinguished that case from the case on hand. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, as already discussed, it cannot be said that the sales were not completed in this State or that the petitioners were not the agents for the Bombay sellers concerning such sales or were not concerned in any other manner than in merely establishing the privity of contract between the Bombay sellers and Andhra buyers in relation to the transaction of sale. In our judgment, the petitioners in relation to the transactions in question come within the ambit of section 14-A and the orders under revision are unassailable. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each petition. Petitions dismissed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 64 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o be noticed that both the Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner have already gone into the case on merits and after going through the accounts have come to the conclusion that the additional sales tax is payable by the petitioning company. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the petitioner suffers any manifest injustice by the failure of this petition. It was argued by Mr. Bhagwat Dayal that the petitioner is only a transferee from a company which was primarily liable to pay the tax. That, however, makes no difference as presumably the petitioning company has purchased the assets and liabilities of the previous company. It is to be noticed that this matter of non-liability to pay the tax was not raised before the Sales Tax Officer and I cannot say if it was raised latter because the other order is not before me as it has not been produced by the petitioning company. For these reasons, I dismiss this petition but make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 63 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mmissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. I, however, express no opinion on the question as to whether or not, in view of the provisions of sections 4 and 12 of Act 24 of 1957, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, although the matter stands transferred to it by virtue of the provisions of section 11 of Act 24 of 1957, has jurisdiction to deal with the same. This question is left open and has to be agitated before and decided by the said Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that this petition succeeds and the order of the Board of Revenue transferring the application for restoration of the review petition to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is quashed and the order made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxed dated 24th January, 1958, whereby he refused to interfere with the order of the Revenue Board, which had dismissed the revision petition, is also quashed. The parties will bear their own costs of this petition. SOMNATH IYER, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urnover of the contracts unless by the contract of the parties such building materials are specifically contracted to be sold. The question whether they are or are not separately shown in the bills is immaterial. (4) It is entirely immaterial whether the building materials used in connection with the contract were supplied through the Development Board or through the P.W.D. or not. The assessees at whose instance these references are made were not liable to pay tax on the value of the building materials they had used in connection with their contracts. As to costs, as the question was a very controversial one and before the decision of the Supreme Court neither of the two contending parties could be held to be entirely unjustified in its respective stand, we think it will be fair if both the parties bear their own costs of these references. We, however, assess the fee of the Standing Counsel for all these references at a total sum of Rs. 200. References answered accordingly.
-
1958 (9) TMI 61 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee as soon as the sugar was packed in the factory and was put in a deliverable state, or latest at the point of time when the sugar was put in the carrier at Hasanpur railway station, that there was no reservation of jus dispossendi on the part of the assessee and so title to the purchaser passed at Hasanpur and there was a sale within the meaning of the main clause of section 2(g) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. For these reasons I hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed by the materials in the record the despatches of sugar made by the assessee to different States, including the State of Madras, under the orders of the Sugar Controller are liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. I would accordingly answer the question of law in favour of the State of Bihar and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the cost of the reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250. KANHAIYA SINGH, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1958 (9) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gment accordingly. 9.. As we have taken the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed even on the assumption that rule 17 is intra vires of the provisions of the Act we have not dealt with in this judgment his further contention that the said rule is ultra vires and should be struck down on that ground. 10.. According to the Government Pleader even if the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes can function under sub-rule (1A) only in cases where there had been proceedings under section 12, the position is different under sub-rule (3A), and under that sub-rule he can take action whether there had been proceedings under section 12 or not. We see no force in this submission. The words or as the case may be between the words by the appellate authority referred to in section 11 and by the revising authority referred to in section 12 in subrule (3A) make the position identical. 11.. The department will pay the costs of the assessee, advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sales of those materials. The result is that subject to the liability of the petitioner in regard to parts supplied and in respect of which tax was levied on the customers and the tax on such taxes collected, there is no other liability on the part of the assessee in regard to the workshop transactions. Thus in relation to the assessment year 1949-50 (T.R.C. No. 233 of 1956) no portion of the disputed turnover, Rs. 2,16,550, is liable to be taxed, neither Rs. 1,27,765, which represented only labour charges, nor Rs. 73,627, which represented contracts which did not involve any sale of spare parts separatim, nor Rs. 15,158, which represented the value of what has been referred to as the fabricated parts. The assessments of the other years, 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53 also will have to be revised by the Tribunal on the same lines. The revision cases are allowed to the extent indicated above, with costs in one, T.R.C. No. 233 of 1956, Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petitions allowed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
It is not permissible to sub-join or track a fiction upon fiction ... ... ... ... ..... s deemed tohave been distributed amongst the shareholders, but to the nature andheads of computation mentioned in section 6 which relates to the headsof income chargeable to income-tax. We have negatived this argu-ment. There is nothing in the language of section 23A which prohibitsor retards the consequences and incidents of the notional income beingtreated as real for the purpose of taxing the shareholder. By thesupposition of law in section 23A a proportionate undistributedincome of the company has for this purpose become the dividendincome of the assessees. The argument is not cogent when it asks usto impose a supposition about capital gains on that supposition of law.There is no warrant in the language of the relevant provisions tosubjoin or tack a fiction upon a fiction. In the result, both the arguments pressed before us on behalf ofthe assessees must fail. Our answer to the question will be in thenegative. Assessees to pay the costs. Question answered in the negative.
-
1958 (9) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 72 of the Indian Contract Act applies to the facts of the present case?
Held that:- None of the contentions urged before us on behalf of the appellants in regard to the non-applicability of section 72 of the Indian Contract Act to the facts of the present case avail them and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1958 (9) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Charges Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... y of such preposition in describing whether a pledge is a pledge on property or a pledge of property. Even on the assumption that the preposition on is a correct preposition, there are larger questions which, as I have already indicated, seem to suggest both on the language as well as in the context of section 109 as well as on business considerations and the history of the introduction of movable property within the orbit of registration under the Companies Act, that clear exceptions were made in favour of (1) pledge and (2) stock-in-trade. It is noticeable that this subsequent Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Rajah of Vizianagaram s case (supra) did not notice the older Division Bench decision of the same High Court of 1943. We prefer the view expressed in the older Division Bench case of the Madras High Court in Radhakrishnan Chettiar v. Madras Peoples Bank Ltd. 1943 13 Comp. Cas. 21 as being more in accord with the language and intention of the statute.
-
1958 (9) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Articles of association - Regulations required in case of unlimited company, company limited by guarantee or private company limited by shares, Company Membership of, Share capital - Further issue of, Power of court to rectify register of members
-
1958 (9) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Powers of SEBI, Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... . I cannot overlook the conjunctive and , connecting clauses (a) and (b) in sub-section (2) of section 397. Both conditions must co-exist before it is competent for a court to grant relief under this provision. On the allegations in this petition, an order for winding up cannot be supported on just and equitable grounds. In Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. Nageshwara Rao 1956 26 Comp. Cas. 91 , it was observed at page 95 It was next contended that the allegations in the application were not sufficient to support a winding up order under section 162, and that, therefore, no action could be taken under section 153C. We agree with the appellant that before taking action under section 153C, the court must be satisfied that circumstances exist on which an order for winding up could be made under section 162. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in the contention of the petitioners. The petition is without merit and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
-
1958 (9) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Winding up Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... by them to that court and the High Court was accepted, and issued a strong admonition and warning to the two counsel for their conduct. Accordingly, in my view, on the authority of the above-said decision if the contemner tenders an unqualified apology after receipt of notice to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, he should be held guilty of contempt, but the court might accept the unqualified apology and discharge him without any punishment. It cannot, in view of the unqualified apology, drop the proceeding against the contemner. Accordingly, I hold the opposite party, Shri P. Topno, Income-tax Officer, Titlagarh, guilty of technical contempt of this court, but in view of the unconditional apology offered by him I do not propose to impose any punishment except observing that he would act with more circumspection and regard for law in future. The proceeding is disposed of accordingly. Under the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1958 (9) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... ure and that it was for that reason that he bought the property in the name of Sri Roshan Lal. In our opinion the learned Judge was right in holding that the official liquidator is entitled to the return of the property. It has been urged for Durga Prasad that according to his statement made before the learned Company judge, he has made substantial improvements to the property and that he is entitled to reasonable compensation therefor. This question was not raised in his written statement, no issue was framed with regard to it and the liquidator in the circumstances adduced no evidence with regard either to the alleged improvements or to what would amount to fair compensation for them. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the question of compensation for improvements should be subject-matter of separate proceedings, if Sri Durga Prasad is so advised and that no order about this matter can be made in this appeal. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
|
