|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 565 Records
-
2001 (10) TMI 1138 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Limited 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) . Order accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1137 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... equired by him for his occupation by himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit the property was held by him. In the present case, the respondent-landlord successfully proved the existence of the aforesaid ground which was concurrently upheld by the appellate court. 12. Looking from any angle we do not find any substance in the appeal and are not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed against the appellant. 13. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as his client's family is in possession of the shop for more than 70 years, a reasonable time be given to him for finding an alternative accommodation and vacating the shop. We feel that the interests of justice would be served if the appellant is given time to vacate the premises on or before 31st December, 2002 subject to his furnishing of the usual undertaking within four weeks.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1136 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of appointment of a Receiver for preserving as well as managing the property to save it from any anticipated loss till the decision of the suit? - Held that:- Need for or desirability of appointing the Receiver and granting of injunction, as prayed for, is concerned, the High Court does not seem to have taken into account the overall necessity to balance the interests of both parties. Since only the land has been said to have been brought into the partnership assets by the Plaintiffs husband with no other contribution of any further funds, that the land was got legally converted into one fit for commercial purposes of the Firm and the constructions were stated to have been put up only with the funds of the other partners or the builders, as the case may be, and the serious difficulties and loss to which the Firm and partners may be put into by freezing the day-to-day business activities of the Firm and the adverse impact on the credibility and reputation of the Firm, as a whole, do not seem to have engaged the attention of the High Court in passing the orders under challenge.
The feasibility or otherwise of appointing Party Receiver and allowing them to carry on the day-to-day activities of the business subject to strict and effective control and accountability to the Court of the realizing of the business does not seem to have been considered at all before going out for the appointment of a third party Receiver and prohibiting any sales, completely. As long as the Arbitration clause exists, having recourse to Civil Court for adjudication of disputes envisaged to be resolved through arbitral process or getting any orders of the nature from Civil Court for appointment of Receiver or prohibitory orders without evincing any intention to have recourse to arbitration in terms of the agreement, may not arise.
For all the reasons stated supra, the orders of the High Court as also that of the Trial Court set aised and remit the proceedings to the Trial Court which shall consider the matter afresh.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1135 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d but subsequently abandoned, it is not understood how on the same set of facts the power under section 36 can be exercised. The powers under both the aforesaid two provisions of the Act, namely, sections 18 and 36 operate in two different fields and is vested into two different authorities. To permit the revisional authority to exercise power under section 36 in the facts of the instant case would be to permit the said authority to trench upon the powers of the primary authority under section 18 of the Act. Such a situation has been disapproved of by the apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company 1965 16 STC 875. 8.. In view of the foregoing discussions, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the suo motu revisional order dated April 30, 1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia, needs to be interfered with. The aforesaid order, therefore, stands quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1134 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld be liable, and no more. The Government by framing the scheme requiring the assessee to sell its entire products to the marketing company obviously did not intend that the consumption of the petroleum products by the assessee 39 s vehicles should not be subjected to tax. It would have to incur expenditure on that account on par with any other owner of similar vehicle in so far as payment of tax is concerned. 9A. So far as the furfural is concerned, it is clear from the fact that clause (a) of section 7-A(1) is clearly attracted. Admittedly, the goods were used in the manufacture of other goods for sale and no tax has been paid on the purchase of those goods. 10.. In the result, though we disapprove of the reason given by the Tribunal for sustaining the assessment, we uphold its conclusion that the assessment is not liable to be interfered with as we have found that the levy of purchase tax was justified under section 7-A(1)(a). Petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ocuments which the assessing officer had considered necessary for grant of the exemption could be produced before the appellate authority, and, if the same are found to be in order, appropriate relief, be granted to the petitioners. 5.. The appellate authority is directed to consider the assessees claim that the sale was covered by section 5(3) of the Act, and consider the documents to be produced by the assessees along with the appeals, if the appeals are filed within ten days from today. The petitioners shall conform to all other requirements so far as filing of that appeal is concerned. It will be open to the appellate authority to scrutinise those documents which the petitioners may file along with the appeal, and come to its own conclusion as to whether those documents are acceptable and whether on the basis of those documents, the relief sought by the petitioners can be granted. 6.. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1132 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on Rs. 25,00,000, there being no direction for payment of interest from the date of deposit, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent for the first ninety days and at the rate of 24 per cent thereafter from the date of making the formal application for refund. We direct accordingly. 6.. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. The Sales Tax Officer is directed to recalculate the amount of interest in accordance with our direction. In case the amount so recalculated exceeds the amount of interest already paid, the balance shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. If, however, it is found that excess amount has been paid to the petitioners, they shall deposit the excess within a period of one month from the date, the recalculation of interest is made available to them by the Sales Tax Officer. R.K. PATRA, A.C.J.-I agree. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1131 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... disadvantageous position merely because he invoked section 28-A and sought clarification from the Commissioner. Any order adverse to the assessee therefore, is only to be made after giving the assessee a hearing. 12.. The impugned order of the Commissioner was one which was clearly adverse to the petitioner. Though petitioner had sought personal hearing no such hearing had been given. Though this point does not seem to have been canvassed before the Tribunal, having regard to the consequences which flow from the order of the Commissioner, we have permitted counsel to urge this point before us. The impugned order of the Commissioner being vitiated by reason of the failure of the Commissioner to provide a hearing to the assessee, the same is required to be, and is set aside. The assessee shall be given a hearing by the Commissioner before he makes any fresh order on the request for clarification submitted by the petitioner. 13.. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1130 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Commissioner being circumscribed under sub-section (2-A) of section 20 of the Act, something may not be read therein which would confer a wide power upon the Commissioner as a result whereof the purport and object of sub-section (2-A) would be defeated. Under sections 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the expression issue acquires a distinct meaning and it confines to the question as to the point in controversy between the parties or their privies rather than the time factor. 32.. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes 1978 42 STC 372 does not lay down the correct law and must be overruled. It is accordingly overruled. 33.. The impugned notices dated March 17, 1996 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty executing the said RRC is also bound to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before putting the said RRC or any RRC in future to execution. The RRC is to be executed by following due process established by law and not by any other remedy. 10.. Thus, the said RRC stands quashed. The attachment, if any, in consequence of the action taken by the authority executing the said RRC stands quashed. The executing authority is declared to have been exonerated from the obligation of executing the RRC which has been passed by the Sales Tax Department of Andhra Pradesh to it for execution. 11.. Thus, rule stands made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The sales tax authority of Andhra Pradesh is at liberty to adjudicate the liability of the petitioner to pay the dues, if any, by following the legal course. 12.. This writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 13.. Parties to act on authenticated copy. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1128 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... manded from him. 7.. Now, coming to the question of reimbursement by the Statfed, the petitioner has placed reliance of exhibit C as quoted above, but exhibit C was valid for the period from July 1, 1993 to September 30, 1993 only, whereas, liability of the petitioner is in respect of the period from July 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994. The last part of para of annexure C has categorically stated that this letter will remain valid up to September 30, 1993 or the Government decision in this regard whichever is earlier . In view of the above, no direction as prayed for by the petitioner can be given. The petitioner is liable to pay taxes assessed and demanded from him. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to approach the competent forum for reimbursement of his liability for the period from July 1, 1993 to September 30, 1993 only as per annexure C. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en a concession is under the principal Act by a notification issued under section 17 of that Act. 7.. Counsel sought to support his submission by referring to certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P.) Ltd. 1992 85 STC 106. The court there was concerned with a notification issued under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and considered the scope of the expression general sales tax law in section 2(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was in that context that the court held that a tax levied under the Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act was as much sales tax as was the tax levied under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. That decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. The court, in that case, in fact, held that the dealer there was required to pay tax under both the enactments. 8.. We do not find any merit in the writ petitions, and the same are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1126 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it for the proper administration of the Act. The Board of Revenue cannot issue a circular exempting a commodity from tax. That power is vested with the Government under section 10 of the Act and the same can be done by the Government by a notification in the gazette making an exemption or reduction in rate in respect of any tax payable under the Act. There is no case for the assessee that there has been any notification issued by the Government under section 10 of the Act exempting the payment of tax. In that situation, we are of the view that the circular relied on by counsel for the assessee is of no avail. 9.. In the light of our discussion as above, we see no error in the decision of the Appellate Tribunal on the aspect raised and argued before us. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with that decision. Consequently, we confirm the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss this revision. Order on C.M.P. No. 467 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 37 of 2001 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... these sections meant that to that extent only the provisions of the Limitation Act stood extended and the applicability of the other provisions, by necessary implication stood excluded. 8.. Rejection of an application to condone the delay in filing the application beyond the period provided for in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act results in the award becoming final with the consequence of the award become executable. If such drastic consequence is to follow on the ground that there is no provision under which the delay could be condoned in that Act, it is difficult to see why delay in filing the appeal under the State Sales Tax Act should be regarded as condonable even when section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to that proceedings. Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used as a magic wand to get over the bar of limitation. 9.. We do not see any error of law or jurisdiction in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1124 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rst Schedule. 15.. As observed earlier, we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the Xerox machine is nothing but a duplicating machine, where it is being used for obtaining copies of the original. There is no ambiguity and the Xerox machine would be considered as a duplicating machine only, falling under entry 12 of the First Schedule. Even assuming that the same would fall under entry 83 also treating it as a machine, still entry 12 being a special entry, it prevails over the general entry, i.e., entry 83. Therefore, in any view of the matter, we do not find that there is any merit in the contention advanced by the counsel for the dealer. 16.. Under the above circumstances, we hold that the Xerox machine is to be treated as a duplicating machine falling under entry 12 of the First Schedule to the APGST Act. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 17.. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1123 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rlance while considering entries in Sales Tax Act was evolved as the tax under the sales tax enactments is normally either on sale or purchase or on manufacture or import, etc. Therefore, it is the understanding or the knowledge of the item by the common man or persons dealing it in the market and not in the technical or botanical sense which was accepted by this Court as the deciding factor. But that test cannot be applied while considering the definition of forest produce . 11.. It is trite that the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the APGST Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding on question of fact. The finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence . 12.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error or flaw in the order of the Tribunal and it does not call for our interference. The tax revision cases, are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1122 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the question whether the poultry feed manufactured and dealt with by the petitioner-dealer would come within item No. 1, processing of cereals and pulses . The words processing of cereals and pulses have to be understood in the way that phrase is understood in commercial or ordinary parlance. Poultry feed is undoubtedly, a distinct goods from the goods cereals and pulses. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the opinion formed by the Tribunal. We do not find any other substantive ground to interfere with the opinion of the learned Tribunal as regard the rejection of the petitioner s claim that poultry feed manufactured by it is covered by item No. 1 of G.O. Ms. No. 2566, Revenue, dated June 11, 1980. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow these tax revision cases in part and remand the proceedings to the learned Tribunal with a direction to consider the first two questions (points) referred to above in accordance with law. No costs. Petition allowed in part.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1121 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r the circumstances, it cannot be said that subsidy would form part of the sale price or turnover of the appellant. In that case, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and held that such subsidy was not includible in the turnover by treating the same as part of the sale price, though paid by the Government in the form of subsidy. 4.. The assessee has in these petitions challenged the assessment orders in which the subsidy has been treated as turnover and tax has been levied thereon. Having regard to the law declared by the Supreme Court, the assessment orders cannot be sustained. They are accordingly set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. All the pending W.M.Ps are closed. 5.. The assessee has, it is submitted, under the directions given by this Court, paid 50 per cent of the amount of the tax levied. The Revenue has no right to retain that amount. The same shall be refunded to the assessee forthwith. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1120 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ove, we are of the view that the exercise of power under section 34(3)(a)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is not controlled by the period of limitation prescribed for bringing in escaped turnover in exercise of the power under section 19 of the Act, which is vested in the assessing authority. After all, revisional power is also part of appellate power and the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court would clearly apply. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal in these cases was correct in holding that there is no bar of limitation in the Deputy Commissioner directing the assessing authority to re-examine the entire case of claim for exemption under section 5(3) of the Act even if it involves enhancement. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. The orders of the Tribunal are, therefore, confirmed and these revisions are dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 3285 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 282 of 2001 dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 1119 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C 646 (2000) 8 KTR 188 (the judgment in the said case is produced as exhibit P10 in O.P. No. 24440 and exhibit P3 in the other O.P.) It is stated therein that the registration is only a formality and that a rational approach is always expected from the officers. 4.. In the above circumstances, I dispose of the original petition directing the respondent to examine the case of the petitioners forthwith in the light of the observations and references made above. Appropriate action in the matter of issuance of registration certificates in the case of petitioners should be taken within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with copies of the original petitions and the materials referred to above before the respondent so as to enable the respondent to process the applications forthwith. Order on C.M.P. No. 40040 in O.P. No. 24440 of 2001, dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
........
|
