|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 382 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 370 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anded the matter to the assessing authority but it appears that the matter was argued on merits and the merits of the matter were examined by the learned single Member. It is after consideration of the merits the finding was arrived at that the bardana passed on along with cloth contained therein without charging any sale price. I am, therefore, of the opinion that such a finding calls for no interference and on the basis of that finding I hold that sales tax is not leviable on the bardana used for the packing of cloth sold by the assessee. This revision petition has, therefore, no force so it is hereby dismissed. Revision No. 105 of 1988 The same question is involved in Revision No. 105 of 1988. The period in this revision is from 15th November, 1963 to 4th November, 1964. In view of what I have considered in Revision No. 104 of 1988, this revision also deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 369 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ry of such date. Mr. Majumdar, of course, had submitted in this connection that the investigation might be completed within a period of three months. But in view of our decision that the seizures were invalid, we need not enter into this question, because now the question of giving the respondents further time to complete the investigation does not arise at all. 9.. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The seizures effected on February 5, 1990, at the business place and the factory of the applicant were invalid and are quashed. Respondents are directed to return the seized books of account and records to the applicant within two weeks from this day. We make it clear that we do not make any observation about the investigation that might have been made on the basis of the seized books of accounts and records. Thus, the application is disposed of. No order is made as to costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 368 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he limited purpose of galvanisation does not, it seems to us, bring a new commodity into existence. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in the above referred to Supreme Court decisions, we find that since the process involved in making bituminised or wax coated waterproof paper consists mainly of joining together two sheets of paper with bitumen or wax, the identity of the paper is still retained and the sale of the bituminised or wax coated waterproof paper would only be a second sale and hence exempt from tax. 6.. In view of the abovesaid view taken by us on the merits of the case, regarding the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we need not go into the other question whether the above referred to clarification given by the Board of Revenue would or would not bind it. 7.. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 367 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tory or workshop established on the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods or any addition to or extension of an existing factory or workshop for manufacturing the same goods. It appears that this note has not gone into consideration of the Tribunal and that apart the fact of use of machinery and other facts which were taken into consideration by the assessing authority were not examined by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, in my opinion, it would be proper that the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal to examine the question as to whether M/s. Agrawal Oil Mills is a new unit or not in the light of the notification as well as in the light of the factors which were taken into account by the assessing authority. This revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is sent back to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Revision petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 366 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cement entered into by the assessee with the purchasers, the amount of freight formed part of the sale price within the meaning of the first part of the definition of that term in section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Act and section 2(h) of the Central Act and was includible in the turnover of the assessee. 11.. Thus, it is clear that freight cannot be included in the taxable turnover unless it is found that it was paid as a part of the stipulation of the price of the goods sold. The law on the subject has thus to be understood as above. 12.. Coming to the facts of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any material to the contrary to suggest that there has been freight realised as a stipulation of the transfer of property in the goods sold, the Revenue shall not be entitled to claim any tax upon the transportation charges. 13.. In the result, we find no merit in this tax case revision. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Revision petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 365 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r is also an order merely declining to use the suo motu power of revision and that being so, it is not a revisional order, far less a final revisional order . It was simply an order in aid of the order declining to invoke the suo motu power. 7.. The position being so, we are unable to agree with the Tribunal below that the Assistant Commissioner had considered the legality or propriety of the assessment order by way of a suo motu revision. It is, therefore, not a revisional order under section 20(3)(a) of the 1941 Act and consequently not a final revisional order as contemplated in section 20(3)(c) of the said Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal below fell into an error in holding otherwise and in entertaining the revision applications. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned orders dated May 13, 1983, and October 5, 1983, passed by the Tribunal below are set aside. No order is made as to costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 364 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to sell goods as goods, as stated above, there cannot be a sale. Further, as already stated, in the above referred to 1977 40 STC 246 (SC) (Union of India v. Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd.) itself it was observed that the question whether a transaction is sale or works contract is largely one of fact, depending upon the terms of the contract. 12.. It may also be pointed out that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes himself, in his clarification dated August 22, 1980, has held that such rubberisation would only be a transaction of works contract. 13.. Taking into account all the abovesaid features and the decisions, we have necessarily to come to the conclusion that the transactions involved in the present cases are not sales exigible to tax and, therefore, we allow all these revision cases and set aside the orders of the authorities below, in so far as they relate to the above referred to turnovers. However, in the circumstances, no costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 363 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t a contract for sale. The erection and commissioning of the lighting system was the fundamental and integral part of the contract. It is essentially a transaction for erection and commissioning of the lighting system. The contract is complete only when the system is commissioned. The supply of materials is merely ancillary to the said contract. The contract was, therefore, a contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale. It was, therefore, not exigible to sales tax. The sales tax authorities and the Tribunal were in error in holding that the petitioner was liable to pay tax on the value of materials used in execution of the said contract. We, therefore, allow these writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders of assessments and direct the Superintendent of Taxes to reassess the turnover of the petitioner after excluding the value of the goods used in execution of the contract aforesaid. We make no order as to costs. H.K. SEMA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 362 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... H), (4) Commercial Tax Officer v. Jasodalal Ghosal Private Ltd. 1979 44 STC 31 (Cal) and (5) Suresh Trading Company v. State of Maharashtra 1981 48 STC 207 (Bom). 6. Admittedly, in this case, the purchasing dealers were having registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, when the disputed transactions were effected the subsequent cancellation of their registration, even if stated to be with retrospective effect, cannot in any manner visit the assessee with adverse consequences. The assessee is entitled to the exemption pleaded, on the basis of form 25 declarations, issued by the purchasing dealers, who had admittedly valid certificates, on the day when the declarations were issued. 7.. In this view of the matter, we concur with the majority decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 361 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder sub-section (1) of section 7 and as such assessment could be made to the best of the authority s judgment. The assessing authority had so clearly expressed in its order dated 3rd April, 1982. It was recorded by the assessing authority that he has no choice but to assess the sales for the year 1970-71 to the best of his judgment on the information available. Thus in view of the above facts in my opinion the Tribunal was wrong in observing that the assessment could be made only under section 12 of the Act for which the period of limitation had already expired. In view of what I have discussed above this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed. The order of Tribunal dated 22nd July, 1987, in respect of the order of the appellate authority dated 5th November, 1984, is set aside. As a consequence thereof the matter will go back to the assessing authority in view of the appellate order dated 5th November, 1984. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 360 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessing authority, before the amended provision came into force, it cannot be reopened under the amended provision. Rights dead cannot be revived. Assessments finalised cannot be reopened. The case on hand relates to the year 1972-73 ending by 31st March, 1973. Under the unamended section, the assessing authority was entitled to reopen the assessment within 4 years next succeeding assessment (year), i.e., before 31st March, 1977. Beyond that period the reassessment was barred. Section 14(4) was amended and the new section 14(4-A) was brought into effect on 17th January, 1978, prescribing a different period of limitation. Since the assessment had become barred under the old provision and the right of the assessing authority to revise was extinguished the new section 14(4-A) does not govern the case. 7.. Consequently this writ petition will have to be allowed. The notice is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 359 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rne out from the record that the petitioner did not charge any tax on the sales made by it and, therefore, the sales of eatable sweet and namkeens, etc., in view of this judgment, as well as in view of the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment, is not chargeable to tax for the period prior to February 3, 1983. Consequently, this revision petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated May 12, 1989, passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, as well as the order dated November 21, 1985, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jodhpur, and the order dated June 29, 1985, passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward II, Circle A, Jodhpur, are set aside and the case is remitted to the respondent to assess the petitioner-assessee for the period between February 3, 1983 to March 31, 1983, in accordance with the directions given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, in his order dated May 14, 1984. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 358 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the sale in the instant case was an inter-State sale. The fact that the use of the materials was made in a works contract in the State of Tripura did not in any way affect the inter-State nature of the transaction. Evidently, the decision of the Superintendent of Taxes holding the sale in the instant case as intraState sale on the ground that the property therein passed to the buyer in the State of Tripura goes counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. As indicated above, the place of delivery or the place where the property in the goods passes is not material for determining whether the sale was an interState or intrastate sale. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of assessment and the notice of demand issued in pursuance thereof are quashed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 (one thousand) to the petitioner by way of cost. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 357 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat class was held to be discriminatory. Mr. Indrakumar draws support from the said decision to point out that any denial of benefit to the petitioner only, on the ground that he is also a dealer in other goods and, therefore, his total turnover of all goods exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, even though his turnover regarding handmade washing soaps manufactured by him does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs, will be discriminatory. The purpose of the notification is obvious that the State intended to grant certain benefits to those who manufacture the handmade washing soaps and sell them therefore, such a benefit will have to be extended to all concerned, the outer-limit being the total turnover in that goods being Rs. 10 lakhs. 9.. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the action initiated against the petitioner by issuing the notice under section 12-A of the Act will have to be set at naught. Consequently, the impugned notice is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 356 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial Tax Officer, in the pre-assessment notice are only technical in nature committed by the clerk while preparing form No. 32 list. He has contended that the omissions are not intentional and has requested to drop the proceedings. That was clearly an observation made without reference to the detailed explanation offered, to which, we have referred. 5.. Therefore, on facts, we find that there were full details of purchase furnished to the Revenue by the appellant which had been reflected in the revised return and as such did not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner under section 22-A of the Act. 6.. Secondly, the Deputy Commissioner s order was not erroneous in view of the revised return. 7.. In that circumstance, we have no option but to set aside the order of the Commissioner as one without jurisdiction and restore the order of the appellate authority. 8.. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant-dealer is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Appeal allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 355 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ch circular or to give any such opinion or interpretation. So, the whole exercise was erroneous and without authority. It has, therefore, no value whatsoever. Such trade circular being purely administrative in nature and without legal authority, the assessing officers who are quasijudicial authorities are free to ignore it. It has no binding effect on them. That being the position, the applicant does not derive any benefit or assistance out of the trade circular. Hence, we cannot accept Mr. Sen s contention in this regard. 14.. The above being our views, the application is dismissed and disposed of. If applicant had furnished a security of Rs. 20,000 in terms of our interim order dated July 17, 1990, the amount shall be adjusted against any demand of tax from the applicant within twelve weeks, failing which refund shall be made within twelve weeks hence. Interim orders are vacated. No order is made as to costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 354 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . There is thus transfer of possession of the bus as both the aspects mentioned by Salmond in this regard, which have been noted above, are satisfied and consequently there is transfer of the right to use the same. 14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present was a case of sale within the extended meaning of this word, inasmuch as there was transfer of the right to use the vehicle for valuable consideration. The petitioners were, therefore, rightly noticed. The grievance of the petitioners relating to the invalidity of the notice (annexure 1) cannot be accepted. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs as the present is the first case of its type to come to this Court because of which the petitioners were not aware of the legal position and they verily believed that they are not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 353 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by the dealer and under the notification dealers are required to pay that recovered tax before filing of the return and where return is filed then treasury receipts are required to be accompanied. If the dealer fails to deposit the tax at shorter intervals then it can be said that the dealer has failed to pay tax within the time allowed. As such, such dealer would incur the liability of penalty under section 16(1)(b). My answer to the question, therefore, is that the amount payable under sub-section (2A) of section 7 is tax and if the tax is not paid or deposited within shorter intervals as required under the notification issued by the Government, then such a dealer incurs the liability of penalty under section 16(1)(b). The revision petition of the department is, therefore, allowed and the question is answered as above. In view thereof the case is sent back to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for decision in accordance with the view taken by this Court. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 352 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... power in appeal should be specific as how and in what manner the power is being exercised and how the assessing authorities are required to act. Had there been any specific direction, the controversy of the nature which has arisen in the present matter would not have arisen. Be that as it may, what I got from the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is that the intention of the appellate authority was clear that the question need not be reopened on issuance of fresh notice and the direction of refund of the amount can be read to mean that it was not open to the assessing authority to initiate fresh proceedings for imposition of penalty and I need not decide the question, in the above view of the matter, as to whether the same result can be reached on the basis of the order of appellate authority which became final under subsection (4) of section 13. In the light of what I have considered above, this revision has no force, so it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 351 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the orders and on that basis it has been found that it does not amount to sale although these facts have been recorded by the Tribunal that the sales tax paid paper has been purchased by the dealer and the material has been printed on the orders of the customers, according to their requirement. This aspect has not gone into consideration that in fact the transaction of sale of paper is independent from the transaction of printing and in respect of which separate vouchers are issued. The assessing authority in its order has given out the facts clearly which fully find support from the statement of the manager extracted by the Tribunal in its order. Thus in the present case the supply of printed material by the assessee does not amount to sale. The Tribunal was, therefore, right and justified in coming to the conclusion that the printed material does not attract levy of sales tax. In the result this revision petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
