|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 310 Records
-
1995 (7) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng materials could not claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. 5.. 1991 81 STC 228 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Catherene Traders) is a case of banian being exported in polythene bags. There was factual finding that the polythene bags were part and parcel of the commodity exported, namely, banian. On that factual finding, this Court held that the sale of the said polythene bags also could claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. 6.. These decisions will have no applications to the present case since we are concerned not with the packing materials but the abovesaid pallets which were only made use of in the hold of the ship so that the mica scrap which were kept in gunny bags do not get damaged in transit. So by no stretch of imagination it can be stated that in the present case, the pallets were also part and parcel of the mica scrap exported. Therefore, the tax case necessarily has to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 382 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Silk Traders reported in 1994 94 STC 157 (Mad.) App. where it was held thus .............While the element of deliberateness, wilfulness or a blameworthy conduct on the part of the assessee may not be necessary for invoking section 12(5) of the Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the bona fides of the assessee have to be gone into before imposing penalty. But this aspect has not been considered at all by the Joint Commissioner. Further taking into account the huge taxable turnover of the assessee, one could easily infer that the abovesaid omission with reference to a small turnover of Rs. 4,189.23 could very well be a bona fide mistake. If that is so, necessarily this tax case appeal has to be allowed setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner. Accordingly, the order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the tax appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 381 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... manufacture, the folded clips were not consumed, but were merely used or utilised. The language used in the section is consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods and not used such goods in the manufacture of other goods . Since the folded clips were not consumed in the manufacture of office files, the purchase turnover does not attract tax under section 7-A of the Act. 6.. Thus considering the fact that the art silk yarn purchased by the assessee was not consumed in the manufacture of art silk cloth, by following the principles adumbrated in the abovesaid decisions, cited supra, we hold that tax under section 7-A of the Act is not exigible in the present case. Accordingly the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the purchase tax is not leviable under section 7-A of the Act is in order. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 7.. In the result, this tax case (revision) filed by the department is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnover cannot be brought to tax and no penalty proceedings can also be initiated. 6.. In A. Valayutha Raja v. Board of Revenue (C.T.), Madras-5 1970 26 STC 176, this Court held as under The provisions as to the period of limitation within which escaped turnover can be brought to tax as provided in section 16(1) equally apply when such an order is sought to be passed by the Board in exercise of its powers under section 34. The effect of the period of limitation envisaged in section 16(1) is wide enough and cannot be said to be limited to assessment of escaped turnover under that sub-section by the assessing authority only. It is to be invoked in all cases where a statutory functionary under the Act assumes jurisdiction to assess escaped turnover. In view of the foregoing reasons we are upholding the order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the reassessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings. 7.. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 379 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... t here, the claim itself was just for less than 2 months constituting the first year of claim or first 12 months of claim. And for the said 2 different months 2 different serial numbers were followed. Therefore, the principle of substantial compliance does not apply to such a case. The doctrine of liberal construction cannot also be applied, because the object of issuing the serially numbered cash/credit memos has already been laid down in many decisions of this Tribunal. Moreover, in the relevant proviso itself, the object has been stated to be for proving that the goods sold were actually the manufactured products of the unit. In the result, the application is dismissed. No order is made for costs. After the judgment is dictated, Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the applicant, prays for stay of operation of the judgment and order for 8 weeks. The learned State Representative opposes the prayer for stay. The prayer for stay is thus rejected. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 378 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... main application, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, is directed to issue a bank draft on a nationalised bank in Calcutta for refundable amount together with interest, as directed, for the period from March 31, 1990 to February 11, 1991. Such bank draft should be issued within a period of four weeks from this day. we have not granted any interest for any subsequent period, because though the non-receipt of cash of applicant is unfortunare, it is difficult to hold that respondents responsible for the same. But the refund payment order in any case ought to gace been a M.I.C.R. instrument in keeping with the prevalent pracrice of bank clearing. Respondent No. 4, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, is directed to see that henceforth refund payment orders are issued which are actually encashable and are in keeping with the prevalemt rules of clearing by banks. The present application is thus disposed of without any order for costs. Application desposed of.
-
1995 (7) TMI 377 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nexus to purpose sought to be achieved. The provisions of rules 62-A(5) and (6) to the extent they subject the registered dealer importer and make it imperative for the importers of goods to satisfy the conditions referred to in rules 24-B(e) and (f) and further to submit a declaration under his signature to the transporter for carrying the goods to the extent it requires furnishing address of the place of despatch, invoice number and particulars about the vehicle is violative of article 304(b) amounting to unreasonable restriction on free trade, commerce and intercourse between other States and the State of Gujarat and is also unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade, of the petitioner violating article 19(1)(g). Accordingly, the petition succeeds. Rules 62-A(2) to (6) and the forms 45-B and 45-C prescribed thereunder are therefore declared ultra vires section 59-A(3) as well as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 376 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... When powers under section 65 are invoked, it is essential that all the statutory requirements should be complied with stricto sensu . The entire decision-making process shall also be fair and reasonable in all respects. Inasmuch as I am satisfied that the District Collector has not conducted any independent enquiry in the present case as contemplated under section 65 of the Act, I am inclined to set aside exhibit P1 order and I do so. 4.. However, I make it clear that the respondents are free to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. This judgment shall not be interpreted to mean that the respondents are precluded from taking fresh proceedings against the petitioner if there are sufficient materials justifying the action under section 65. Inasmuch as I set aside exhibit P1 order, I direct the 4th respondent to release the petitioner from the Central Prison, Viyyur, forthwith. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded by the learned Tribunal, the filament bulbs manufactured and sold by the respondent are not being exclusively used in or adapted for being exclusively used in the motor vehicles for either of the purposes like beauty, convenience, general effectiveness or as an adjunct or accompaniment. I therefore uphold the findings of fact and the interpretation rendered by the learned Tribunal that the filament bulbs manufactured and sold by the respondent are unclassified items attracting lower rate of tax. For the aforesaid reasons the revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow do not have any merit and are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgments and orders dated December 15, 1992, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, Camp Dehradun, in Second Appeal Nos. 296 to 302 of 1992, are hereby confirmed. Let an attested copy of this judgment be placed in the record of each of the revisions decided by this common judgment. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... six months, the Tribunal should have done it particularly in view of the prolonged litigation on the question of fact during last about nine years. It does not serve any interest either of the Revenue or of the assessee if the matter is prolonged indefinitely and the authorities are involved in unnecessary exercise of their powers resulting in the waste of public time and money. Therefore I do find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The reman order is not legally justified and the finding of fact must be recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record. For the aforesaid reasons this revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed in appeal is hereby quashed and the learned Tribunal is hereby directed to rehear the appeal and record a fresh decision in the appeal after recording the finding of fact in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of three months. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 373 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 248 of 1982 and 189 of 1983 are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law, after hearing learned counsel for the parties. It shall be open to the Tribunal to decide the matters itself or if found necessary, remit the same to the authorities for decision afresh. We have no doubt that the authorities under the Punjab Act shall decide the matter expeditiously and determine tax liability under the law then applicable and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagatgit Sugar Mills case 1995 96 STC 344 (1994) JT 6 SC 534. The parties will be at liberty to seek any further direction or clarification, if required. The interim order passed in all these matters are hereby vacated and the State authorities may now collect the tax according to law. All these writ petitions stand disposed of with the above observations and directions. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Writ Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (7) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 985 annexure A3 subject to other provisions of the Rules (b) Petition No. 7684 of 1993 is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for amending the certificate of registration and grant the application if there is no other impediment without taking into consideration the circular issued by the Commissioner annexure A4. We further direct the respondents that after amending the certificate of registration, the petitioner may be supplied with requisite C form subject to rules in this regard. This should be done within a fortnight of receipt of rule (c) The petition No. 158 of 1995 is allowed. The notices annexures D1 to D3 and any proceeding, if any, taken in pursuance thereof, are quashed and (d) The petition No. 188 of 1995 is allowed. The notices annexures B1, B2, B3 and C and any proceedings, if any, taken in pursuance thereof, are quashed. There will be no order of costs in each case. Rule made absolute accordingly. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 371 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other. Mere putting the hubs and bearings on the axle will not convert the axle into a different commodity. By use of the bearing and hubs, the movement of cart becomes smoother. In other words, it cannot reasonably be said that by putting the hubs and bearing on axle, the nature of the axle is changed. Item No. (xiv) of clause (iv) of section 14 of the CST Act, specifically deals with that, i.e., axles, and the aforesaid notification prescribing the rate of 7 per cent cannot be attracted in this case. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Board was right in holding that the goods, namely, axles fitted with hubs and bearing, which formed subjectmatter of the bill dated October 31, 1977, are liable to be taxed at the rate of 4 per cent. The aforesaid question has, therefore, rightly been decided. The application under section 15(3A) of the Act, which has been treated and heard as revision, is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 370 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... the subordinate legislation is made, specially authorises the imposition, even if it is assumed that the power to tax can be delegated to the executive. The basis of the statutory power conferred by the statute cannot be transgressed by the rule-making authority. A rulemaking authority has no plenary power it has to act within the limits of the power granted to it. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was declared ultra vires. Since the said rule was struck down by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court, no reopening of assessment under section 147 could be justified. Even on the merits, therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the above, I agree with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member. The points of difference are answered accordingly and the case will now go back to the Bench for passing a consequential order in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1995 (7) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has power to condone the delay in the filing of appeal before it under the said section?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Rent Act, 1965 functions as a court and the period of limitation prescribed therein under Section 18 governing appeals by aggrieved parties will be computed keeping in view the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 such proceedings will attract Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and consequently Section 5 of the Limitation Act would also be applicable to such proceedings. Appellate authority will have ample jurisdiction to consider the question whether delay in filing such appeals could be condoned on sufficient cause being made out by the concerned applicant for the delay in filing such appeals. The decision rendered by the High Court in the present case as well as by the appellate authority taking contrary view are quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the court of the appellate authority, that is, District Judge, Thalassery. Rent Control Appeal No.9/94 filed before the said authority by the appellant is restored to its file with a direction that the appellate authority shall consider I.A.56/94 filed by the applicant for condonation of delay on its own merits and then proceed further in accordance with law
-
1995 (7) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT
Additional duty under Sec. 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act - dispute is in regard to the levy on the imported asbestos fibre - article which is imported has not been produced or manufactured - Held that: - assumption underlying the Explanation to Section 3(1) would appear to be that an imported article which is the result of production or manufacture can be produced or manufactured in India; the emphasis in the assumption is on the words "in India" - additional duty on an imported article is provided for to counterbalance the excise duty leviable on the like article made indigenously - decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works requires the consideration of a larger Bench - proceedings shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative directions
-
1995 (7) TMI 366 - SUPREME COURT
Determination of market value of land - When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large track of lands. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large track of land.
-
1995 (7) TMI 365 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appealable order ... ... ... ... ..... tice and to issue of an order under his own signature setting out reasons for the order passed on the appellants, request. In the present case, I find the communication does not set out any reasons and also does not discuss the circumstance of the appellants request nor it deals with the reasons based on which the appellants had felt compelled to approach the authorities. The communication therefore, as rightly contended by learned DR, cannot be treated as an appealable order. The appellants are therefore entitled to an appealable order from the authority concerned. It is also desirable that the competent authority gives the appellant an opportunity to explain their position before any order as above is passed in the matter. With the above observation the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable in law. There is also a reported decision of this Bench on the very same point. The competent authority should pass orders under Rule 51A after taking into consideration that decision.
-
1995 (7) TMI 364 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal, ex parte disposal of appeal on merits - Hearing - Restoration of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... arte order to afford an opportunity of being heard to the aggrieved party is not the same as the power of review. The question of review ordinarily arises where the order impugned is vitiated on account of some mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record, or where there was failure to consider the material on record. The purpose of setting aside an ex parte order is to consider the whole matter afresh affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent. When this distinction is borne in mind, there is no scope for the argument that because the Tribunal has no power to review its own order, it cannot also set aside its ex parte order for affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, the order of the Tribunal is called and the appeal is directed to be listed for re-hearing on merits and stands posted to 11th August, 1995. 4. emsp In view of our order on the petition, the reference application is dismissed.
-
1995 (7) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction of High Court - Held that:- No bar created by a statute can bar the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution conferred upon the High Court. But, at the same time while exercising the powers under article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should keep in mind the legislative intention indicated by sub-section (7) and should respect it. Only in exceptional cases should the court interfere and not as a matter of course.
........
|
