Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 419 Records
-
1997 (8) TMI 484 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... nreasonable. 32.. Only one other submission of the learned counsel remains. It has been argued that though the Amendment Act was gazetted on October 17, 1996 yet it was not made available till October 31, 1996 and hence the law cannot be said to be operative until October 31, 1996 and that as such the levy from October 17, 1996 to October 31, 1996 is not collectible. The argument has no force. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that since the law is retrospective from August 1, 1996, it hardly matters whether the gazette was made available or not. Except an averment in the affidavit, nothing is shown that the gazette was not made available till October 31, 1996. Whatever it may be, as the increase in rate of levy is retrospective in character, such a fact even if correct, would have no bearing on the question. In the result, the writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 500 in each case. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 483 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... the custody/control and possession of the machineries in favour of the respondent-DVC at any point of time during execution of the works contract and, therefore, the provision of section 2(t)(iv) or any of the clauses of section 2(t) of the Act are not attracted. I am, therefore, unable to maintain the order of the Commissioner by which demand has been raised against the petitioner-company for payment of sales tax on the value of the work. 31.. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent-commercial taxes authority as contained in annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition are quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are not liable to pay sales tax for the works executed by them under the contract in question with respondent No. 4-DVC for removal of overburden, namely, earth, loose debris and stones at Bermo mines. However, there shall be no order as to costs. S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 482 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... sel, on the issue of different rate of taxation in the neighbouring States as violative of the equity clause of the Constitution. A law cannot be struck down as arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution, on the ground that the rate of taxation is higher than the rate of taxation in other States on the same subject-matter. For that matter a State law cannot be faulted as discriminatory and unconstitutional on the basis of comparative study of the provisions of the enactments. Reference P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka reported in (1989) Supp1 1 SCC 696 (paragraph 87) . The mere fact that a tax falls more heavily on some even in the same category cannot be a ground to render the law invalid. 13.. For the reasons stated above, I uphold the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions. The writ petitions are accordingly fail and are dismissed. Stay orders if any, automatically stand cancelled. No order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 481 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ecuting the unregistered lease deed. 8.. The effect of the aforesaid two authorities is that the registered lease deed dated March 29, 1990 will relate back to June 1, 1989 when the unregistered lease deed was executed by the father. The effect of this finding is that the petitioner will be deemed to have complied with all the conditions as on September 23, 1989, that is the date of first sale and, therefore, the operation of the eligibility certificate cannot be restricted with effect from July 20, 1992, that is, the cut off date in a case where all the conditions for eligibility certificate are not satisfied on the date of first sale. 9.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed the impugned order dated 17th January, 1994, passed on the review application, annexure 5 to the writ petition is quashed and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of eligibility certificate with effect from September 23, 1989, that is the date of first sale. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... lubricating oil into usable lubricating oil is not a refining process and as such not covered by the Explanation II to section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and allowing the assessee the benefit of resale claim in respect of the sale of such refined lubricating oil. 11. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1960 11 STC 827 where hydrogenated groundnut oil (commonly called vanaspati) was held to be groundut oil. In that case, the Supreme Court held that processing of groundnut oil in order to render it more acceptable to the customer by improving its quality would not render it a commodity other than groundnut oil. 12.. In view of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1997 (8) TMI 479 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... some other materials, in which, rubber is the predominant element though coir is also used in that product and rubberised coir . No such distinction is possible in view of the clear words used in the notification which refers to rubberised coir. Further no evidence was produced before the authorities below to show that in the mattresses and pillows made by respondent predominant element is rubber and not coir. Revenue cannot be permitted to raise any such question at this stage. I do not find any merit in these revision petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of the CST Act on the assessee-dealers. The concomitant consequence to flow therefrom is that this finding deserves to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. This point is accordingly answered. 27.. For the reasons as above, the common order of the Tribunal setting aside the imposition of penalty upon the assessee-dealers by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, Madras-1 deserves to be set aside and the common order of the said Appellate Assistant Commissioner deserves to be restored. 28.. In fine, both these tax cases (revision) are allowed. The common order of the Tribunal setting aside the common order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, Madras-1 imposing penalty upon the assessee-dealers under section 10-A of the CST Act, in lieu of prosecution is set aside and the common order of the said Appellate Assistant Commissioner is ordered to be restored. There shall, however, be no order, in the circumstances, as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ) read with section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? (3) When admittedly all the returns were filed beyond the prescribed time, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the assessment of the applicant could be legally made under section 33(3) of the Act by rejecting the plea that it can only be legally made under section 33(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and consequently holding that the provisions of section 36(2)(c), Explanation (1) read with section 9(2A) of the Central Act are attracted? 2.. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment in Sales Tax Reference No. 15 of 1995, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the above, question No. (3) need not be answered and the same is therefore returned unanswered. 3.. This reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (8) TMI 476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... for deciding whether a sale or purchase in inter-State or not as to in which State the property in the goods passes. What is decisive is whether the sale or purchase is one which occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. Applying this test, it is clear that the purchases in question are inter-State purchases and no purchase tax is exigible thereon under section 13 of the Bombay Act. That being so, the Tribunal was justified in this case in holding that the purchases in question were inter-State purchases falling under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and no purchase tax was leviable under section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 16.. Accordingly, we answer question Nos. (1) and (2) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, we answer question No. (3) also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 17.. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1997 (8) TMI 475 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... on for not carrying the documents as required under sub-sections (2), (3) or (3A). The order levying penalty is appealable under section 28A(7) before the prescribed appellate authority who may annul, reduce or confirm the penalty. The seizure of the goods for payment of the penalty amount has to be only to the extent the same is necessary and the goods so seized have to be retained for 10 days before the same can be sold to liquidate the liability. Section 28A of the State Act, is not therefore in pari materia with the provisions with which the Supreme Court was dealing in Abdulla s case 1971 27 STC 1, nor can the principle enunciated in the said decision be extended or applied to the said provision as it stands after the amendments brought from the year 1969 onwards. The challenge to section 28A must therefore fail and is accordingly rejected. 6.. There is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,500. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 474 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ny exemption for assessment year 1983-84 and admittedly it had paid tax in respect of its turnover up to 30th September, 1984 and the exemption was claimed from October 1, 1984. Therefore, the stoppage of production during the period August 21, 1983 to March 31, 1984 had become irrelevant and of no consequence. 15.. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in dismissing the dealer s appeal and upholding the cancellation. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order dated March 14, 1989, it is ordered that the revisionist s Appeal No. 24 of 1988 (Bhawani Glass Works, Firozabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) stands allowed and the Commissioner s order dated February 22, 1988 cancelling the eligibility certificate is quashed. The parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 473 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... essee was entitled to the deductions and in that it was observed ...........As a matter of fact, in the definition taxable turnover , certain reliefs have been given that how the total taxable turnover shall be worked out and for that, it is clearly mentioned in clause (ii) that the tax-paid goods which is being used, or becomes a part of another finished goods, which is sold in the market, then that amount of tax will be deducted in order to work out the taxable turnover. In the present case, admittedly the packing material was tax-paid and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the tax paid on the packing material. 4.. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct and we answer both these questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the tax paid on the packing material from the taxable turnover. Reference answered in favour of assessee.
-
1997 (8) TMI 472 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Extent of exemption Period (1) (2) (3) 1. Pulses as specified in entry 14 of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Prevesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. Whole of entry tax From 1st April, 1982 to 31 st March, 1985 (both days inclusive). 2. Cotton and woollen khadi closth Do. Do. This notification clearly says that cotton and woollen khadi cloth are exempted wholly from the entry tax. The assessee has produced the certificate from the seller-Sardar Handloom Factory, Meerat, that this is a handloom cloth. Therefore, the Member of the Board of Revenue held that the khadi cloth which has been brought by the assessee is exempted from the entry tax by virtue of notification dated March 8, 1982 read with entry 51 of Schedule I to the Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Board of Revenue appears to be justified and hence we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1997 (8) TMI 471 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... or providing municipal and civil amenities, now it has to be held that the tax in question is compensatory in nature instead of restrictive requiring any previous sanction or assent of the President of India. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, Karnataka Act 8 of 1993 bringing about amendments to the Act cannot be held as not come into force for want of President s assent. 29.. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions and the findings arrived at by us, it is declared that the impugned notifications are ultra vires the powers of the State Government both on the ground of causing discrimination in terms of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India as also on the ground of exceeding the legislative delegation made in its favour under section 3(1) of the Act. The authorities under the Act are accordingly directed to complete the proceedings, if any, pending before them in accordance with the law so declared. Anyhow, there will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (8) TMI 470 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s had cancelled the registration on the ground of change of place of business. However, it is not necessary to pursue further this aspect, as we are satisfied that the order of cancellation was illegal having been passed in contravention of principles of natural justice as contemplated in section 7(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned orders passed under annexures 1 and 3, which are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the quashing of annexures 1 and 3 will not stand in the way of appropriate authorities taking any appropriate action under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder, if circumstances so warrant. 6.. The writ application is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders under annexures 1 and 3 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 469 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of the Central Act is only with reference to the consideration for which the goods are sold. 15.. The amounts received as mahimai were included in the bills at the rate of 15 paise per each bundle of match box. It is clear that the mahimai collected by the assessee for the specific purpose of being spent for the charitable purposes mentioned in the bills would form part of the sale price and forms part of the amount payable as consideration for the sale of the goods. The ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Pandaria Pillai 1973 31 STC 108 is applicable to the assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, also. The decision of this Court in the case of Pandaria Pillai 1973 31 STC 108, is still good law and has not been expressly or impliedly overruled by the decision of the apex Court. 16.. We do not therefore find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 468 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... red by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Gemini Studios 1975 36 STC 357 wherein it was held that as the assessee had acted in the bona fide belief that the items in respect of which C forms were used included in one or other of the items mentioned in the certificates and there was no finding to the contrary and the assessee was entitled to relief. 4.. In this case, the bona fide use of the form by the assessee, who had used there items in the goods manufactured by him has been accepted by the assessing officer. That plea cannot be said to have been lacking in bona fides as it had uniformly been accepted in all the earlier assessment orders and the certificate was also subsequently amended to include these other items. Having regard to these facts, the assessee cannot said to have committed an offence under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We therefore set aside the imposition of penalty. The revision is allowed. Revision allowed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 467 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... tly in conformity with the rules. Before making the summary assessment the concerned officer is required to afford opportunity to the dealer to furnish the return or to comply with the order/notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Act. The assessing officer did whatever was lawfully possible. The assessing officer at the relevant time acted strictly in conformity with the rules and therefore no infirmity as such is discernible in the impugned order of assessment. 15.. For the reasons stated above on the facts situation I do not find any equitable ground to exercise my power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner averted with success the authority from realising the tax due by moving this application on erroneous and incorrect statement resulting enormous loss to the State. I find no reason to interfere with the assessment. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed and Rs. 10,000 is assessed towards costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... greement for sale of the packing material. The Tribunal has found that that onus was not discharged. The reasons given by it for coming to such a conclusion cannot be regarded as perverse even if an alternate view is possible on the same set of facts. The Tribunal is normally the final forum for determining the question of fact. Even though there is a lingering suspicion that the packing material, may, in fact, have been sold, that by itself cannot constitute sufficient grounds for upsetting the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the consideration of the facts placed before it. It is needless to say that this decision is confined to the facts considered in this case, and no general proposition regarding the taxability or otherwise of packing material, where the nature of the commodity makes it essential to use packing material to put it in a deliverable state, can be said it could have been laid down. 12.. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 465 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Singh, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer 1977 40 STC 238 is of no help because the question therein was different. Sub-section (7) of section 14-B of the Act was examined so as to decide whether there existed any repugnancy between the provision for levy of penalty and the general scheme of the Act. Reliance placed on another decision of this Court in New Dadri Golden Transport Company v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 1964 of 1996) dated April 4, 1997 is also of no avail because, in that case, the petitioner was found to have not availed the alternative remedy of appeal. In the case before us, this Court may, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, interfere, as it is found that the order under challenge is without jurisdiction and bad in law. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the issuance of notice and the initiation of proceedings under section 14-B of the Act are quashed. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
........
|