|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 333 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pointed out long back that the form 25 declarations were defective and were not acceptable, no attempt was made by the petitioner to rectify the defects in the form 25 declarations or to adduce other evidence in the case to show that the sales have actually been effected to other assessable dealers within the State. He did not choose to avail of any opportunity to produce any document before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or even before the Tribunal though the matter was pending for a long number of years after the assessment proceedings started in the year 1982-83. The case now put forward about a commission agency and the declarations having been furnished by the agent has never been put forward before the lower authorities. The grounds of appeal, annexure B, filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is totally silent on such a contention. We do not therefore find any reason to entertain this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 332 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere is no finding that either the purchaser or the seller was not a bona fide dealer or that the goods were not recorded in their respective accounts. No penalty under section 13-A(4) of the Act could, therefore, be levied. No penalty under section 15-A(1)(q) of the Act has been levied nor could it be probably levied because there is no denial of the petitioner s allegation that there was no check-post on the way. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that no case whatsoever for the levy of penalty was made out and the learned Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, had rightly cancelled the penalty. The Tribunal s order, therefore, cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Tribunal s order dated July 12, 1988, is hereby set aside and the Commissioner s appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner will get its costs of this writ petition from the respondents which I assessed at Rs. 1,500. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt was unable to read the stay order as implying that the respondent was obliged to deposit tax, for the stay order then would be of no utility to the assessee. These observations have to be read in the light of the earlier observations to the effect that tax had not become due as he was not assessed and under these circumstances even voluntary deposit of tax with the return was not an obligation of the assessee. These observations cannot be read out of context for submitting that once there is a stay order against recovery of tax under no circumstances the tax can be voluntarily deposited by the assessee to avoid payment of penalty or interest which would accrue automatically on demand which is permitted to be raised by the Revenue as per the very same stay order. There is, therefore, no substance even in the last point. These are the only points canvassed before us and as there is no substance in any of these points the appeal fails and is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 330 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urnishing inaccurate particulars of turnover is punishable by a penalty of a sum not less than 50 per cent, but not exceeding 200 per cent of the amount of tax which could thereby have been avoided. By clubbing the two types of sales, referred to above, the dealer has not avoided any tax and, therefore, the provision which prescribes the calculation of penalty fails in its application and, consequently, no penalty could be levied. This revision too, therefore, would have to be allowed. For the above reasons, both these revision petitions are allowed, the Tribunal s order dated February 27, 1988, is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the Commissioner s Second Appeal No. 285 of 1984 shall stand dismissed while the revisionist s Second Appeal No. 1008 of 1981 shall stand allowed and the penalty levied by the assessing officer vide order dated February 28, 1980, shall stand quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 329 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ew that an item of hosiery is also a garment and that before a garment can be treated as an item of hosiery, it must satisfy two tests, i.e., it must be worn next to the skin and must be machineknitted. This judgment clearly shows that an item of hosiery falls under the description of a garment as well. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Har Narain Moti Lal 1983 UPTC 181, a learned single Judge approved the decision of the Tribunal holding that nylon and woollen hosiery were readymade garments within the Notification dated May 30, 1975, referred to above. In that case also, the Commissioner of Sales Tax had contended that they should be taxed as an unclassified item and his contention was repelled. In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the pullovers and cardigans manufactured and sold by the dealer-respondent are readymade garments and their sale is taxable as such. This revision, therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 328 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion filed by the petitioner for entertaining the appeal without payment of tax and for staying the recovery of tax in terms of the assessment order. Till then, the Assistant Collector, I Grade-cum-Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ward No. 8, Jalandhar-I and other authorities of the department are restrained from making recovery from the petitioner on the basis of notice issued to the petitioner. They are also directed not to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the Land Revenue Act, 1887, for the purpose of making recovery of the tax. We also make it clear that the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, shall independently apply its mind to the request of the petitioner for grant of stay of the recovery of tax and it shall in no manner be influenced by the fact that the court has passed an order directing the departmental authorities not to make recovery by use of coercive methods. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner aforesaid. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (9) TMI 327 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the assessing authority to get appropriate certificate for not deducting the tax if he is legally entitled to it, but these questions cannot be determined in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India as no effort has been made by the petitioner to approach the assessing authority in the matter and the directions cannot be given in the absence thereof. 7.. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court of which neither the particulars nor a copy thereof was given and it was assured that he would furnish a copy of the said judgment but it has not been done so. Hence the said judgment cannot be considered. When a judgment is relied upon by the learned counsel, it is his duty to furnish the particulars thereof or to provide a copy of the same, or else it should not be referred to. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch are contrary to the judgment in question and in respect of which, as pointed out earlier, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Commercial Taxes in his minutes dated July 20, 1994 issued on July 28, 1994, has made it clear that closed cases prior to March 31, 1992 are not to be reopened and pending cases including remanded cases will have to be dealt with on the basis of the judgment of the learned single Judge, out of which the present appeals arise. We direct that if on the basis of the notices so far issued, the department decides to pursue action, they shall give a minimum time of eight weeks to the dealers to file their objections, if any, and then proceed with such cases in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment. (v) All the other writ appeals are disposed of in terms of what has been stated above. (vi) The order of the learned single Judge under appeal stands modified accordingly. (vii) There will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (9) TMI 325 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nnot immediately or directly affect the free-flow of trade. The power in question cannot be said to be bad. If there is any misuse of that power, the same can be challenged. (at page 399 of 1968 22 STC 376 (SC) 163 of AIR 1969 SC 147). To our mind, these observations are only illustrative and not exhaustive and have no application to the present cases. In the present case, no misuse of the power has been established. 37.. In Indian Cement s case 1988 69 STC 305 (SC) AIR 1988 SC 567 itself, the apex Court has quoted at page 315 of STC 573 of AIR There is also no doubt that exercise of the power to tax may normally be presumed to be in public interest . When it is so, a heavy burden lay on the petitioners to dislodge this presumption. They have failed to discharge this heavy burden. 38.. Accordingly, we find no merit in these writ petitions and dismiss them being devoid of merit. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 324 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the Act of 1941. There will be no direction on the respondents not to make the applicants liable for payment of turnover tax for the periods from May 3, 1979 to May 2, 1984 or for the four quarters ending August, 1986-87. There will be no declaration that the deletion of section 6B(2)(e) of the Act of 1941 with retrospective effect is ultra vires article 286 of the Constitution. The orders of assessment made by the respondent No. 4 on August 30, 1985, the appellate order passed by the respondent No. 3 on November 21, 1986, the assessments for the four quarters ending August, 1982 and August, 1983 and the demand notices for the four quarters ending on August 31, 1982 and August 31, 1983 cannot be quashed. 19.. The application is accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Tribunal on October 16, 1989 is vacated. Parties to bear their own costs of the case. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d or closed and the assessment was barred by time. Since the Tribunal has not mentioned the necessary facts, i.e., the date on which the assessment was originally made, the date on which the order was set aside by the first appellate authority and the revisionist has also not filed copies of the first assessment order and that of the appellate order, it is not possible for me to finally decide whether the assessment was barred by time or not. Therefore, having explained the legal position as above, the matter will have to be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated August 5, 1987, so far as it relates to assessment year 1976-77 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to rehear the respondent s appeal and to dispose it of afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 322 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ount deposited by the dealer. Invoking this provision, the Revenue is taking the stand that only Rs. 1,791.50 was deposited and the application was, therefore, defective. This contention is not tenable and the department having accepted the cheque without pointing out to the dealer that any bank commission was likely to be charged, it was its duty to inform the revisionist that a certain amount had been deducted by the bank as commission and ask the revisionist to make up the deficiency. It is only if the deficiency was not made good that the Sales Tax Officer could set up a stand like this. In view of the finding recorded above, that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application under section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the applications moved by the revisionist were barred by time and have been rightly rejected. These revision petitions, therefore, have no force and are hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 321 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ulpatty Road on February 25, 1993 had jurisdiction to exercise the powers of sealing. Since the godown had been unsealed and the goods in the godown were left at the custody of the applicant, no further relief is required for the goods in the godown. Since the order has been passed in RN-42 of 1994 on August 24, 1994 for return of the seized documents and records on January 22, 1993 and February 25, 1993 no further relief is required for the said seized documents and records. We direct that the sum of Rs. 6,294 deposited as security by the applicant in terms of interim order dated June 8, 1993, shall be adjusted by the respondents against future assessments in respect of the applicant. The respondents are directed to issue road permits and declaration forms to the applicant in accordance with law and if any such application is rejected, there should be a reasoned order. The main application is thus disposed of. No order is made for costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (9) TMI 320 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hould remember that they are quasi-judicial body and not the administrative authorities and their functioning must inspire confidence in the public. In this case we are constrained to observe that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had not acted fairly by fixing the date of hearing as October 6, 1994 and thus, virtually making the appeal of the petitioner infructuous. Having regard to the fact that earlier also the petitioner had been compelled to come to this Court, we deem it proper to direct the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the application filed by the petitioner for grant of stay within a period of fifteen days. Till then, the petitioner shall not be required to deposit first instalment of the tax as ordered by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, vide his order dated August 26, 1994. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. A copy of this order be given dasti on payment. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (9) TMI 319 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is remanded to respondent No. 2 to decide afresh the review application after giving opportunity to the petitioner in the light of the observations made by us as above. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated May 18, 1993, annexure 5 to the petition is quashed in so far as it refuses the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the case afresh preferably within three months from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before it. Petitioner is also directed to file the certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. Until disposal of the said review application, the recovery proceedings as against the petitioner for the assessment years, 1987-88 and 1988-89, both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act, shall remain stayed as well as the further assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93, both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act, shall remain stayed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal merely on the ground of delay?
Whether the appellant has a good case?
Held that:- The delay had been caused on account of administrative exigencies. The failure to condone the delay has resulted in injustice as rightly urged on behalf of the appellant State because the judgment of the learned Single Judge constitutes a bad precedent. Therefore, we condone the delay. Proceed to decide the matter on the merits instead of remitting it to the Division Bench.
High Court was not legally justified in directing a further consideration of the candidature of the respondent for the post of Sub-Inspector. As the respondent’s father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion". Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case. Appeal allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 317 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n parlance, that is, how the public in general conversant with the subject-matter has dealt with it and understood. The word is being required to be given a popular meaning. In the present case, the Tribunal has observed that no evidence has been led by the parties so as to understand the popular meaning of sheet by the persons carrying on business in non-ferrous metal and thus, remanded the matter giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on that point. In my considered opinion, the approach of the Tribunal is correct. Whether the foil is included in the commodity mentioned in the notification, depends on the facts proved in this case. I do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal in remanding the matter, where both the parties will have opportunity to lead evidence and establish the fact as to how the commodity foil is understood by the persons dealing with the commodity. 5.. In the result thereof, this revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT
Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties?
Held that:- Where the goods confiscated or seized are required to be returned either under orders of the court or because of the provision in the Act, this Court has not countenanced the objection that the goods having been lost or destroyed the owner of the goods had no remedy in private law and the court was not empowered to pass an order or grant decree for payment of the value of goods. Public policy requires the court to exercise the power in private law to compensate the owner where the damage or loss is suffered by the negligence of officers of the State in respect of cause of action for which suits are maintainable in civil court. Since the seizure and confiscation of appellant's goods was not in exercise of power which could be considered to be act of State of which no cognizance could be taken by the civil court, the suit of the appellant could not be dismissed. In either view of the matter, the judgment and order of the High Court cannot be upheld. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court decreeing the suit of the appellant is restored with costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 315 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e said Act which are subjected to sales tax. (2) The turnover on which tax is leviable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 5 is excluded from the purview of turnover tax under section 5(2A). (3) Sales tax collected by the assessee is liable to be excluded as per the proviso to section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In view of the above, it is not necessary to answer question No. 4. 19.. The questions, therefore, are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department, as set out hereinabove. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Learned Additional Advocate-General applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our view, looking to the clear provisions of section 5(1), 5(2) and 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, no substantial question of law of general importance arises in these cases. The quantum of tax involved is also small. Hence the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 314 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... or her representative at the time of hearing of the case, so that the appellant gets an opportunity of furnishing an explanation thereto, if she has any. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated July 5, 1994, in terms of our observations in this order. Nothing contained herein shall be read to imply any comment by us on the merits of the case. The copy of the order shall be forwarded to both the parties, and the Competent Authority shall give a notice of hearing to the appellant after giving her four weeks time to attend the hearing. The Competent Authority shall fix the hearing accordingly, on receipt of copy of the order, and while issuing hearing notice to the appellant in terms of our order, the Competent Authority shall ensure that a copy of the reasons recorded, if not already supplied, is also sent to the appellant. The Competent Authority shall pass an appropriate order thereafter, within four months of the receipt of the copy of this order in his office.
........
|
