|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 408 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or act independently of it for purposes of levying penalty. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it can be seen that reopening of the proceedings by the issue of notice on June 30, 1978, was only for the purpose of levying penalty under section 12(3) of the Act. Consequently, apart from the justification or otherwise on the facts of the case for levying penalty, the stage or the point of time at which it could be levied, as the provisions stood at that point of time, has passed, as penalty has to be imposed when making the assessment under section 12(2), and the levy by a separate proceedings thereafter by a subsequent authority cannot be justified. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal, though not for the reason assigned by the Tribunal, but for slightly different reasons, assigned by us, cannot be interfered with. 5.. The tax revision case, therefore, fails, and will stand dismissed. But under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 407 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has been retained or was being carried on. In the light of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the categorical findings rendered by the Tribunal, we find no error of law in the order of the Tribunal warranting our interference in this revision. The two decisions relied upon by the Revenue have no relevance in the case on hand since rule 6(d) of the Rules was not the subject-matter of consideration therein as in the present case. 8.. Further, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the unit in question is an independent one and the same has been sold as a whole, rendering the assessee eligible to claim the benefits of rule 6(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting our interference. Consequently we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 9.. The tax revision case fails and shall stand dismissed. Under the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 406 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aid notification, or of commencing the production. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did hold recognition under section 32 of the Act and that he did not surrender it for cancellation within 60 days from the date of coming into force of the said notification or of commencing the production. As the petitioner was holding recognition and had not surrendered it for cancellation within the specified period obviously he was not entitled to the benefit of exemption. Therefore, without going into the question whether the Government was entitled to withdraw the exemption by issuing the impugned notification dated 17th August, 1982, it will have to be held that the petitioner was rightly denied the sales tax exemption certificate as it was holding recognition under section 32 of the Act and had not surrendered the same for cancellation within the prescribed time. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 405 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... connection by Shri Patnaik that the first proviso has to be read along with the second proviso, even if it is done, the conclusion reached by us would not be different, because the second proviso says that if the penalty is enhanced in revision, the interest on the excess amount shall be payable from the date by which the dealer is required to make payment of such excess amount. As such, this proviso also has to await for its operation till the revision is decided. 5.. In the result, the petition is allowed by quashing the liability to pay interest which the petitioner was called upon to pay by annexure 2. The question whether interest will ultimately be payable would depend on the fate of the revision application which is pending. As the revision application is pending since long, we would direct the revisional authority to dispose of the revision most expeditiously, if not already disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. D.M. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 95,089 which amount was sought to be recovered by form XVII declarations. Consequently we find that this is a fit case which deserves to be remitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company 1982 51 STC 381 and in Tax Case (R) No. 629 of 1990 decided on 30th August, 1990 and by us hereinabove. The order of the Joint Commissioner is consequently sustained only to the extent that it set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and is not sustained with regard to the restoration of the order of the assessing authority. The matter shall stand remitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for proper disposal in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Matter remanded. Reported as State of Tamil Nadu v. English Electric Co. of India Ltd. 1992 84 STC 1 (Mad.) supra.
-
1991 (4) TMI 403 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch authority to reassess the escaped turnover as reflected in the secret accounts unearthed and it is not open to the assessee to contend that such reassessment proceedings should be confined to any one particular item of turnover or aspect only which came to be considered or assessed on an earlier occasion. We do not find anything either in any provisions of the Act or the scheme underlying section 16 read with section 31 of the Act to countenance the plea of the petitioners before us to import such limitations on the exercise of powers by the appellate authority as well as the assessing authority. 14.. For what all has been stated above, we see no merit in the contentions on behalf of the petitioners in the above revisions. The orders of the appellate authority and that of the Tribunal do not call for any interference at our hands and the revisions consequently fail and shall stand dismissed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 402 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quired to be noted that at the time of granting extension the Sales Tax Officer has specifically stipulated that the liability to pay penalty incurred because of late payment would continue. In that view of the matter, we do not think that extension of time for payment of tax granted by the Sales Tax Officer would have as such constituted reasonable cause justifying non-payment of tax by the applicant within the stipulated time. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the lower authorities were right in holding that extension of time simpliciter or grant of instalments for payment of sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer does not constitute reasonable cause to claim protection from liability arising under section 36(3) of the Bombay Act and/or under section 45(5) of the Gujarat Act. In the result, we answer all the three questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the State and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sued the notice under section 34 of the Act. The period of limitation prescribed under section 16(1) of the Act would apply to the cases of escaped assessment. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) does not dispute that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 16(4) to 16(6) of the Act are not attracted. 9.. Thus, we find that not only the Joint Commissioner lacks jurisdiction in exercise of the powers under section 34 of the Act to bring the alleged escaped turnover to account for the first time, he could not have done it even otherwise, since it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 16(1) of the Act. Both the preliminary objections, therefore, succeed and are allowed. The order of the Joint Commissioner under appeal is set aside. Since we have disposed of the matter only on the preliminary objections, we have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. Preliminary objections allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 400 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceeding on the basis, till the Tribunal has rendered its decision on 24th November 1976, that the sale is taxable only at 4 per cent. When the assessing authority himself was of the view that the turnover relating to cloth bags is taxable at 4 per cent, the assessee cannot be said to have intentionally violated the provisions of the Act. On the special circumstances of this case, we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the penalty provisions will not stand attracted in this case. Mr. Dattu having realised our approach to the problem before us, submitted that liberty should be preserved to the State to refuse the refund of the tax collected already on the ground of unjust enrichment on the part of the assessee. This is not a matter before us. We are only concerned with the proceeding under section 18-A of the Act. Therefore, we do not express any opinion on the submission made by Mr. Dattu. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 399 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hese facts have, in fact, weighed with the Tribunal. Therefore, though the Tribunal has not specifically stated in para 15 of its judgment these very reasons which it has earlier referred to, these circumstances constitute a reasonable cause for non-payment of tax and the Tribunal has therefore found that in the circumstances of the case imposition of penalty was not good and same was required to be removed. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal had that jurisdiction and for the reasons recorded by it in the earlier part of its judgment though not specifically stated in para 15 of its judgment, it has, in fact, reached the finding that there was reasonable cause for non-payment of tax on the part of opponent-assessee, and therefore, the penalty was not required to be imposed. 7.. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of opponent-assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 398 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of this Court referred to supra which have been consistently taking a contrary view. 16.. On the facts and circumstances of the case before us, we are of the view that the sales of unserviceable articles in question are incidental to its business and that they constitute systematic disposal of articles becoming either surplus or unserviceable in their hands. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was justified in applying to the case on hand the ratio of the decision reported in 1973 31 STC 426 (SC) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd.) and subjecting the transactions of the assessee to tax and that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. Consequently, we set aside the order of the Tribunal, direct the restoration of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and allow the tax revision case but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 397 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 91. A public officer dealing with sales tax matters is not expected to behave in such a way and his action is wholly unjustified. Though the correction may not change the position with regard to the petitioner, i.e., the assessee has not filed objection even up to January 31, 1991, but yet as the records are before me it is necessary for me to make this observations. It is absolutely necessary for the higher-ups to take appropriate action against this officer who has made this correction purposefully. I do not understand why a notice which has been prepared on August 16, 1990 should remain in office for five months before it was served on January 18, 1991. The records produced before me clearly, show that some action is necessarily to be taken by the higher-ups. The writ petition will stand allowed. In order to make the department not to repeat the same mistake, the department is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 to the petitioner, as exemplary costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... doubt, the first appellate authority too did not choose to specifically deal with and come to the grips of the findings rendered by the assessing authority. That, in our view, does not absolve the revisional authority from dealing with the matter in some detail which could indicate a proper and objective consideration of the materials on record and arrive at a proper and necessary finding required of that authority exercising quasi-judicial functions involving civil consequences and rights of parties. Consequently, we set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner dated July 16, 1981 and direct the said authority, after giving an opportunity to the appellants, to objectively consider the question involved for determination in the light of the principles laid down by us supra and pass such further orders as are required in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed and remitted as indicated above but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 395 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... h applications still remain pending, the respondents are hereby directed to dispose them of and to grant such certified copies within three weeks from this date subject to compliance of relevant rules/ provisions by the applicant. If the applicant makes fresh applications for such certified copies, those shall be similarly dealt with by respondents within three weeks of filing of the same. If the applicant chooses to file any appeal before the appropriate authority, such appeal shall be subject to the law of limitation applicable thereto and relevant statutory provisions/ rules. We make it clear that we are not making any observation one way or the other about condonation of delay. If such appeals are filed and condonation of delay is prayed for, the appellate authority will be free to decide that question according to law. This judgment disposes of all the six applications. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rry or rasam. Therefore, the mere mixing of those ingredients, for the facility of consumers by the assessee cannot be said to give rise to the emergence of a new commodity. The finding that the mixture of the ingredients did not bring into existence a new commodity was returned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after analysis of the process utilised in the preparation of the powders. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that no fault could be found with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 3.. In view of what we have noticed above, we do not find any cause to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal in that behalf, and hold that masala powder, curry powder and rasam powder prepared by mixing the ingredients which have already been subjected to sales tax in this State, cannot be subjected to levy of sales tax. The tax revision cases, therefore, fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 393 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eference here being made to entry 27 of Schedule B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, which reads Fertilizers excluding oil-cakes and de-oiled cakes........... The Legislature, itself having treated de-oiled cakes, as something different and distinct from oil-cakes as per entry 27 of Schedule B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (vide Act No. 7 of 1986 and as amended by Notification No. S. 54/H.A. 20/73/S.63/86 dated July 16, 1986), there can be no escape from the conclusion that oil-cakes and de-oiled cakes cannot be clubbed together to deny exemption from payment of sales tax to de-oiled cakes as has been done by the Legislature in respect of oil-cakes. In other words, de-oiled cakes being fertilizers, would be exempt from payment of sales tax for the relevant period. This reference is consequently answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 392 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll have the jurisdiction to transfer the pending proceedings to the other officer and until such an order is passed, the officer who started the proceedings first will continue to have jurisdiction to frame the assessment and the other officer will not have the jurisdiction to do so. If this rule is not followed, there is likelihood of conflict of opinion between officers of co-ordinate jurisdiction and in law such a course would be avoided as far as possible. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the notices, annexures P.1 and P.2, issued by Shri M.S. Hooda, Excise and Taxation Officer (AES), are hereby quashed. However, the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, would have jurisdiction to frame the assessment and can continue the proceedings until the same are got transferred under rule 7 to Shri M.S. Hooda or some other officers competent to frame the assessment. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 391 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Tribunal and in my opinion, the case requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and on the basis of provisions contained in second proviso to section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The authorities below have not applied their mind to the provisions for the purposes of recording their satisfaction that such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (A) or clause (B) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. The Tribunal will also consider the other aspect regarding the issue of form C to the dealer by the U.P. Cement Corporation Ltd. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The revision is allowed. The order dated 18th January, 1988, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh in accordance with the observations made in the order and in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 389 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... efinite. It is not a general purpose article but is used ordinarily in electric motor for the purpose stated above. It is also regarded as a distinguishable part of stator which is an integral part of electric motor. It being neither a raw material used in the manufacture or reparation of electric motor, nor an article of general use, it will have to be held that it is an article having a distinct commercial identity and is a distinguishable part of electric motor. For these reasons, it will have to be held that SECW wires sold by the assessees were spare part of an electric motor and sales thereof fell under entry 16(2) of Schedule II, Part A to the Act and not under entry 41 of that Schedule. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in taking a contrary view. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessees and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs in these references. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 388 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be subject to sales tax under item 138 of the First Schedule or to a multi-point levy under section 3(1) of the Act cannot be sustained in law. 20.. Consequently, T.C. Nos. 1108 of 1981, 1387 of 1984 and T.C. Nos. 248 to 250 of 1989 shall stand allowed and the turnover in question relating to sales of ultramarine blue is liable to sales tax only under item 110 of the First Schedule to the Act. In the light of the declaration of the law as above, no further orders or specific relief require to be granted separately in W.P. Nos. 6689 and 6690 of 1984 since the State will implement the provisions of the Act for the relevant period in the light of the position of law now laid down by us. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. So far as W.P. Nos. 3116, 3250 and 3251 of 1986 are concerned, the plea of the writ petitioners has to fail, on the view taken by us, as above, and these writ petitions shall stand dismissed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
