|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 85 Records
-
1962 (9) TMI 48
Whether a purchase for a pre-determined nominal price of rupee one for property, whatever its actual market value, is a sale by public auction within section 167 of the Code?
Whether a sale for a "nominal" bid of Re. 1 is "a sale by auction" within the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue code?
Whether the fact that the defaulter was apprised that Government would bid for a nominal sum of one rupee for the property at the auction renders the sale valid?
Held that:- Appeal allowed in part. Appeal is allowed and the suit decreed as regards the three items of land bearing Survey Nos. 35, 40 and 80. The appeal will however stand dismissed as regards the house in village Kurhe.
-
1962 (9) TMI 47
Whether the Income tax Officer was competent to pass an order under section 23A(1) of the Act after having allowed a rebate of one anna per rupee in the assessment under proviso (a) to paragraph (B) of part I of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1948?
If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company is a company in which the public are substantially interested for the purposes of section 23A of the Act?
Whether the loss of ₹ 12,75,000 incurred by the company, Prior to its reconstruction in 1930, could be taken in to consideration for purposes of the applicability of section 23A(1) of the Act?"
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The exclusion of "public" in the manner indicated generally from more than 75% of the shares and the concentration of such a holding in a single person or a group acting in concert is what attracts 23A. Thus the High Court was not right in answering the second question in the affirmative. The appeal is allowed.
-
1962 (9) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Whether the appellate authority is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before summarily rejecting an appeal for non-payment of the full tax assessed?
2. Interpretation of Rule 58 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
3. Analysis of Section 38(3) of the Act regarding the admission of appeals against assessment orders.
4. Examination of the quasi-judicial functions of appellate authorities under the Act and the application of natural justice principles.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a reference made under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, regarding the obligation of the appellate authority to provide a hearing before summarily rejecting an appeal for non-payment of the full assessed tax. The case involved an appellant who appealed against a tax assessment but had paid only a portion of the tax due, requesting admission of the appeal based on part payment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner summarily dismissed the appeal without hearing the appellant's reasons for partial payment. The Board of Revenue set aside the dismissal, emphasizing the necessity of providing a hearing to the appellant before rejecting the appeal. The court analyzed Rule 58, which does not explicitly mandate a hearing before summary rejection, and interpreted Section 38(3) which allows for admission of appeals on payment of a lesser amount of tax, emphasizing the need for reasons and a hearing in such cases.
2. Rule 58 of the Act governs the summary rejection of appeals or revision applications for non-compliance with requirements or non-payment of tax. The rule allows for summary rejection if the appellant fails to pay the full tax or a directed smaller amount. However, it mandates that the appellant be given an opportunity to amend the appeal to comply with requirements before summary rejection. The rule does not explicitly require a hearing before summarily rejecting an appeal for non-payment of the full tax, but it mandates an opportunity to amend the appeal.
3. Section 38(3) of the Act stipulates that no appeal against an assessment order shall be admitted unless the tax with penalty, if any, has been paid. The provision allows the appellate authority to entertain an appeal on payment of a smaller directed amount. The court emphasized that when an appellant seeks to file an appeal on paying a lesser amount of tax, the appellate authority must provide a hearing and record reasons for rejecting the request. The discretion granted to the authority must be exercised judiciously, with reasons for the decision.
4. The judgment delves into the quasi-judicial functions of appellate authorities under the Act and the application of natural justice principles. Citing precedents from income tax cases, the court establishes that assessing officers and appellate authorities act in a quasi-judicial capacity, necessitating adherence to the rules of natural justice. In the case at hand, the court held that natural justice required the appellate authority to provide a fair hearing to the appellant regarding the request for admission of the appeal on partial tax payment. The court clarified that while a detailed inquiry was not necessary, a fair hearing and reasons for rejection were essential due to the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings.
In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of providing a hearing to appellants seeking to file appeals on partial tax payment, in line with natural justice principles and the quasi-judicial functions of appellate authorities under the Act.
-
1962 (9) TMI 45
Issues:
Petitioner aggrieved by order rejecting stay of tax and penalty collection. Praying for writ to quash order. Dispute over tax and penalty levy. Application for stay rejected by Appellate Assistant Commissioner. No reason provided for rejection. Petitioner approached higher authorities. Statutory duties of Appellate Assistant Commissioner questioned. Discretionary power to grant stay examined. Comparison with Income-tax Act provisions. Proper exercise of jurisdiction by Appellate Assistant Commissioner in rejecting stay analyzed. Mandamus sought to reconsider application for stay.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in fried grams, challenged the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejecting his application for stay of tax and penalty collection. The tax and penalty levied by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer were disputed by the petitioner, leading to an appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner summarily rejected the stay application without providing any reasons, prompting the petitioner to approach higher authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the stay application was arbitrary and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed to fulfill his statutory duties.
The statutory framework under section 31 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, grants the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the discretion to grant stay of tax and penalty collection pending an appeal if sufficient security is furnished. The comparison with section 45 of the Indian Income-tax Act highlights the duty of the authority to exercise this discretion objectively and not arbitrarily. The discretion to grant stay is not an unfettered power but must be exercised after due consideration of the grounds presented by the appellant.
The court emphasized that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner must scrutinize the grounds for stay and cannot reject the application arbitrarily. The duty to examine the security tendered and assess the appellant's financial situation is crucial in determining whether a stay should be granted. The court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed to properly exercise his jurisdiction by rejecting the stay application without valid reasons, leading to the issuance of a mandamus directing him to reconsider the application.
In conclusion, the court allowed the petition and directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to review the petitioner's application for stay. The judgment underscores the importance of proper exercise of statutory duties and discretion by authorities in matters of tax and penalty collection, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.
-
1962 (9) TMI 44
Issues:
Assessment of the assessee to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57; Interpretation of section 11(1) and section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the right to apply for referring a question of law to the High Court; Jurisdiction of the High Court under section 11(4) in case of refusal by the Revising Authority to state the case based on the grounds of no question of law arising and defects in the application made under section 11(1).
The High Court of ALLAHABAD delivered a judgment concerning the assessment of the assessee to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. The assessee filed revision applications under section 10 of the Act, seeking to refer questions of law to the High Court. The Judge (Revisions) rejected a second application as time-barred and dismissed the first application due to defects. The assessee then approached the High Court under section 11(4) challenging the decision of the Revising Authority. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 11(4) and held that the Revising Authority's refusal to state the case based on the application's defects meant that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to require the case to be stated. The High Court emphasized that for its jurisdiction under section 11(4) to apply, the Revising Authority must refuse to state the case exclusively on the ground that no question of law arises from a valid application made under section 11(1). The Court concluded that the application was misconceived, dismissing it with costs. The judgment clarified that the High Court's role is limited to deciding questions of law arising from the Revising Authority's order under section 10, not the validity of the application under section 11(1.
In analyzing the interpretation of section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the High Court emphasized that the Revising Authority's refusal to state the case must be solely based on the ground that no question of law arises from a valid application made under section 11(1). The Court highlighted that if an application does not meet all conditions prescribed in section 11(1, it can be dismissed immediately without the Revising Authority deciding on the question of law arising from its order under section 10. The judgment clarified that the High Court's jurisdiction under section 11(4) does not extend to cases where the Revising Authority rejects the application based on defects or other grounds, apart from the absence of a question of law. The Court stressed that the legislative intent was for the High Court to intervene only when the Revising Authority's refusal is solely on the basis of no question of law arising from a valid application under section 11(1.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 11(4) in case of refusal by the Revising Authority to state the case, the judgment outlined the legislative framework indicating that the High Court can require the case to be stated only if the Revising Authority refuses to do so based exclusively on the absence of a question of law arising from a valid application under section 11(1). The Court clarified that the High Court's role is limited to deciding the question of law arising from the Revising Authority's order under section 10, without delving into the validity of the application under section 11(1. The judgment emphasized that the legislative intent did not grant the High Court the power to intervene if the Revising Authority's refusal was based on grounds other than the absence of a question of law from a valid application under section 11(1.
-
1962 (9) TMI 43
Enhancement of tax - amendment of the Indian Coinage Act (Act 3 of 1906) by the Amending Act 31 of 1955 the rate of sales tax which was levied on the appellant's beedies was .02 Ps. per rupee and thus the appellant was called upon to pay ₹ 25,038 more than he would have paid if he had been charged at the rate of 3 pies per rupee.
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The tax cannot be challenged on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Secondly, it was submitted that the Indian Coinage Act, being a Central Act dealing with "coinage and legal tender" under item 36 of List I, could not change the rate of tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. It is unnecessary to decide this question because if the Central Act, i.e., the Indian Coinage Act, has not the effect of changing 3 pies into .02 nPs. in the rate of tax leviable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, the Mysore Existing Laws (Construction of References to Values) Act, 1957, which has been set out above has made a provision for charging the tax in terms of naya Paisas instead of pies. Therefore the levy of tax in terms of naya Paisas is not unconstitutional nor is it a taxing measure but it deals merely with the conversion of the old coinage into new coinage.
-
1962 (9) TMI 42
Whether in the circumstances of this case it can be said that criminal force was used to the Inspector of Sales Tax?
Whether an act of the kind proved in the case before us falls under section 353, Indian Penal Code?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Do not agree with the suggestion implicit in the concluding part of his judgment that where the facts disclose an offence under section 26 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act resort should rather be had to the provisions of that section than to the general law even if the act amounts to an offence under the general law.
-
1962 (9) TMI 41
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the State's appeals regarding the maintainability of suits for recovery of unauthorized sales tax collections, as there was no provision in the General Sales Tax Act precluding such suits before the introduction of Section 23-A in 1955. The Court held that civil courts' jurisdiction cannot be excluded unless explicitly expressed or clearly implied in the statute under consideration. The appeals were dismissed, and costs were awarded against the State. (Case citation: 1962 (9) TMI 41 - KERALA HIGH COURT)
-
1962 (9) TMI 40
Issues:
- Interpretation of the term "dealer" under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
- Determining whether the assessee qualifies as a dealer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- Analysis of whether assembling railway vans constitutes carrying on business in Uttar Pradesh.
- Examination of the definition of business under the Sales Tax Act.
- Assessment of the contract for the supply of railway vans in relation to conducting business in the State.
- Consideration of the repetition or continuity of acts of buying and selling in Uttar Pradesh to establish business presence.
- Comparison of the definition of business under the Sales Tax Act with the Income-tax Act.
- Application of legal principles from the case law to determine the existence of business activities in the State.
- Decision on the taxability of selling goods in Uttar Pradesh without conducting business in the State.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court, delivered by Justice Manchanda, revolves around the interpretation of the term "dealer" under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The core issue is whether the assessee, a manufacturer of railway vans, qualifies as a dealer in Uttar Pradesh based on the business activities conducted within the State. The court was tasked with determining if the assembling of railway vans in Uttar Pradesh amounts to carrying on business in the State, as per the provisions of the Sales Tax Act.
The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax initially held that while the assessee might be considered a dealer, it was not actively engaged in the business of selling within Uttar Pradesh. The State's Senior Standing Counsel argued that the mere act of assembling the vans in Uttar Pradesh constituted conducting business in the State. However, the court delved into the definition of a dealer, emphasizing that conducting business involves more than a single transaction. The court highlighted that to be deemed a dealer, there must be a continuity of buying and selling activities within the State.
The judgment scrutinized the contract for the supply of railway vans to the North Eastern Railway, emphasizing that a single contract alone might not establish the business presence required for tax liability. The court referenced the definition of business under the Sales Tax Act, stressing the need for repetitive acts of buying and selling to constitute business activity. It distinguished the concept of business under the Sales Tax Act from that under the Income-tax Act, highlighting the importance of continuity in transactions.
Drawing from legal precedents, including the case of Senaji Kapur Chand v. Devi Chand, the court reiterated that the essence of business lies in the repetition of acts. While acknowledging that the assessee was engaged in business activities, the court concluded that a single contract without additional transactions did not suffice to establish a business presence in Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the court ruled against the department, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the assessee's classification as a dealer in the State.
In a subsequent reference (Sales Tax Reference No. 253 of 1958), the court reiterated its decision, aligning with the earlier judgment and ruling in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized consistency in its approach and directed the department to bear the costs of the reference. The judgments collectively underscored the importance of continuous business activities to qualify as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, highlighting the significance of multiple transactions and a sustained business presence within the State for tax liability to apply.
-
1962 (9) TMI 39
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "communication by the Tribunal of any order" under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Determining the starting point of the limitation period for filing appeals under the Act.
3. Obligation of the appellate or revisional authority to supply copies of orders under Rule 61 of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the term "communication by the Tribunal of any order" under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner's applications under this section were dismissed as time-barred by the Board of Revenue. The Board contended that fixing a specific date for order and passing orders on that date constituted communication, even if the petitioner was absent. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that communication implies actual receipt of the order by the appellant. The Court analyzed various provisions of the Act and rules to support its interpretation, highlighting the necessity of delivering or sending copies of orders to the assessee.
2. The judgment addressed the issue of determining the starting point of the limitation period for filing appeals under the Act. Sections 38(4), 39(3), and 44(1) and (2) of the Act were examined in this context. The Court clarified that time does not commence until a copy of the order passed in appeal is communicated to the appellant. It emphasized the importance of actual communication of the order to trigger the limitation period, as opposed to mere knowledge of the order. The Court referred to relevant rules under the Act that mandate the delivery or sending of copies of orders to the assessee.
3. The judgment also delved into the obligation of the appellate or revisional authority to supply copies of orders under Rule 61 of the Act. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that Rule 61 only required supplying copies upon request, asserting that the rule imposed an obligation on the authority to provide copies to the appellant and send another copy to the concerned officer. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the Court held that the time for presenting an application for a reference to the High Court does not begin until the copy of the order is supplied to the aggrieved party. The judgment concluded that the impugned orders were erroneous and directed the Board to entertain the petitioner's applications and deal with them in accordance with the law.
-
1962 (9) TMI 38
The State appealed against an acquittal in a sales tax case where the accused failed to pay Rs. 610 within the specified time. The High Court held that the pendency of an appeal does not absolve the accused of criminal liability. The acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under section 19(b) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, along with the outstanding tax amount of Rs. 610.
-
1962 (9) TMI 37
The Kerala High Court ruled that the supply of fabricated steel goods to customers constituted a sale of goods, not a works contract. The court held that the intention and result of the contract was to transfer property for a price, indicating a sale. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Appellate Tribunal.
-
1962 (9) TMI 36
The Department challenged the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision that sales tax collected by the assessee is not liable to assessment if not shown separately in bills. The Tribunal ruled that sales tax collected should be deducted from gross turnover regardless of being shown separately. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the absence of a requirement to show sales tax separately does not prevent the deduction. The petition was dismissed. (Citation: 1962 (9) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT)
-
1962 (9) TMI 35
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 477, Indian Penal Code (IPC)
2. Legality of the actions of Sales Tax Officers
3. Conviction under Section 332, IPC
4. Defective charges and prejudice to the accused
Detailed Analysis:
1. Conviction under Section 477, IPC
The defense contended that the conviction under Section 477, IPC, for secreting "valuable security" could not be sustained because the account books in question could not be considered "valuable security" as defined in Section 30, IPC. The court noted that the books were not recovered, and no witness could recall the entries. The prosecution argued that account books generally found in business places were involved. However, the court concluded that ordinary account books do not create or extinguish any right or liability by themselves and thus do not qualify as "valuable security" under Section 30, IPC. The court also dismissed the argument that the books could be considered valuable security under the Sales Tax Act, as they only support the dealer's claim but do not create any legal right or liability.
2. Legality of the Actions of Sales Tax Officers
The defense argued that the officers' acts amounted to an illegal seizure under Section 17(3) of the Sales Tax Act, as they were not empowered to proceed under that clause. The prosecution contended that the officers acted under Section 17(2), which allows inspection of books. The court found no evidence that the books were taken against the wishes of the accused, noting that accused 1 did not protest when the officers took the books. Therefore, the court concluded that the officers' actions did not amount to illegal seizure.
3. Conviction under Section 332, IPC
- Accused 3: The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's case against accused 3. Early records did not clearly indicate his involvement, and there was no identification parade. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt and that the conviction under Section 332 without a direct charge was faulty.
- Accused 1: The specific charge against accused 1 was under Section 307 for attempting to murder P.W. 1, which was not proven. The court held that the failure to frame a charge under Section 332 caused prejudice to accused 1, as he was not given notice that he was being tried for personally assaulting Narasimhan. The court also found no evidence of a prearranged plan or common intention among the accused, as required for the application of Section 34, IPC.
- Accused 2: The court upheld the conviction under Section 332, IPC, as all three officers testified about his involvement. The court dismissed the defense's argument regarding the lack of injuries on P.W. 2, noting that two blows with bare hands need not leave discernible marks. The court found no significant discrepancies in the evidence against accused 2.
4. Defective Charges and Prejudice to the Accused
The court agreed with the defense that the defective charges caused prejudice to the accused. The charge against accused 1 was misleading, as it suggested he was only vicariously liable for being a member of an unlawful assembly, not for personally assaulting Narasimhan. The court noted that even the question put to accused 1 under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, did not clarify the charge. The court emphasized that the common intention required by Section 34, IPC, implies a prearranged plan, which was not proven in this case.
Conclusion:
The court set aside the conviction of all the appellants under Section 477, IPC. The conviction of accused 1 and 3 under Section 332, IPC, was also set aside. However, the conviction and sentence of accused 2 under Section 332, IPC, were confirmed. The appeal was partly allowed.
-
1962 (9) TMI 34
Whether the said articles, absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, gauze and other things are drugs within the meaning of s. 3(b) of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As agreeing with the High. Court, that the said articles are substances used for or in the "treatment" within the meaning of s. 3(b) of the Act.
As this was a gross case where large quantities of spurious drugs had been manufactured by the appellant and passed off as goods manufactured by a firm of repute. The appellant was guilty of an anti-social act of a very serious nature. Thus the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three months was more lenient than severe. There is no case for interference with the sentences.
-
1962 (9) TMI 33
Issues:
Jurisdiction of civil court vs. company court in matters relating to the administration of public charitable trusts.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order returning a plaint for presentation to the company court instead of the civil court. The dispute arose regarding the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for settling a scheme for the due administration of a high school managed by a committee registered under the Indian Companies Act. The appellants contended there was a breach of trust and sought court directions for proper administration. The defendants argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the existence of specific provisions in the Companies Act for settling a scheme.
The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which confers jurisdiction on matters related to the administration of public and religious charities. The court clarified that this provision aims to protect public rights and prevent the misuse of trust funds, distinct from vindicating private rights. In contrast, provisions like Section 398 of the Companies Act deal with private rights of company members in cases of mismanagement, not applicable to public charitable trusts.
The respondent committee argued that if a company is solely created for charitable purposes, the jurisdiction under Section 92 would not apply, suggesting resorting to the company court for misconduct issues. Drawing parallels to English law on ecclesiastical and eleemosynary corporations, the court emphasized that in India, Section 92 governs matters of public, charitable, or religious trusts irrespective of the trustee being an individual or a company.
The court rejected the argument that the company court should exclusively handle issues of charitable trusts managed by companies, asserting that Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code applies universally to all public charitable trusts. It clarified that beneficiaries of a trust can seek court intervention under Section 92 for breaches or necessary directions, regardless of the trustee's nature. Consequently, the lower court's decision to decline jurisdiction was deemed erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, directing the lower court to restore the suit for further proceedings.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the jurisdictional scope of the civil court under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code concerning public charitable trusts, emphasizing its applicability regardless of the trustee's entity, and overruling the notion that company courts exclusively handle such matters.
-
1962 (9) TMI 32
Issues: Petition under section 17 for confirming alteration of memorandum of the company regarding addition of a new business activity not covered by existing clauses.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition under section 17 for confirming the alteration of the memorandum of a company to add a new business activity. The company, Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd., sought to include a fresh object related to acquiring picture houses, cinemas, and theaters for exhibiting pictures and films. The Registrar of Companies opposed the petition, arguing that the proposed new business did not fall under any clause of section 17(1) except possibly sub-clause (d). The judge considered the argument and referred to a previous unreported decision and other case laws to analyze the situation. The judge highlighted the requirement that the new business activity should be conveniently or advantageously combined with the existing business of the company. It was noted that the new business of picture houses and cinemas did not align with the existing distilling business of the company. The judge emphasized that there was no indication that the new business would enhance the existing business or provide any convenience or advantage in combining the two activities. Consequently, the judge found the petition lacking merit and dismissed it with costs amounting to Rs. 100.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956, regarding the alteration of a company's memorandum to include a new business activity. The judge considered the requirement that the new business should be conducive to the existing business and provide some advantage or convenience in combination. The judge determined that the proposed business of picture houses and cinemas was not aligned with the existing distilling business of the company and would not serve the purpose of section 17(1)(d). Therefore, the judge dismissed the petition as it failed to demonstrate how the new business activity would benefit or complement the existing operations of the company.
-
1962 (9) TMI 31
Issues:
- Whether it is a fit case for the appointment of a provisional liquidator to take over the records, assets, and properties of the company until the petition for winding up is decided.
- Whether the company is liable to be wound up under section 433(c) and (f) of the Companies Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application under sections 433 and 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the appointment of a provisional liquidator for the company, alleging that the company had suspended its business for over a year and its funds were misused and embezzled. The managing director of the company admitted that the company had ceased doing business and had disposed of vehicles and route permits without depositing the proceeds in the bank. The court, considering the circumstances and the company's financial status, appointed the official liquidator as a provisional liquidator to take custody of the company's assets and properties.
In response, the company contended that it still possessed assets, including buses, and was planning to acquire route permits to restart its business. The company argued that the previous mismanagement allegations were against the former management and that the current directors were not involved in any wrongdoing. The company's director also mentioned various amounts owed to the company by other entities. However, the court noted that the company's actual cash on hand was significantly less than the amounts owed, raising concerns about the company's financial stability.
The court referred to a previous case where the absence of profit alone was not sufficient grounds for winding up a company if it was making profits under new management. However, in the present case, the court found that the circumstances warranted the appointment of a provisional liquidator under section 450 of the Companies Act. The court directed the provisional liquidator to take control of the company's assets and report back within a fortnight.
The court framed the issue of whether the company is liable to be wound up under sections 433(c) and (f) of the Companies Act for further evidence and directed both parties to submit their list of documents and witnesses within a specified timeframe for the upcoming hearing.
-
1962 (9) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the company recognized a liability of Rs. 14,503.80 towards South India Builders.
2. Whether the claim by the Income-tax Officer was barred by limitation.
3. Whether the Income-tax Officer's claim should be treated as a preferential payment under section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Recognition of Liability:
The company had entered into a contract with South India Builders, which defaulted in paying income tax. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the company to pay the amount due to the builders directly to the tax department. The company acknowledged in its letter dated 20th February 1953, that a sum of Rs. 14,503-12-9 was due to the builders according to its books, but stated that the amount would only be payable upon the builders signing and accepting the final bills. This acknowledgment was supported by the company's books of account, which recorded the liability as an unclaimed liability. The liquidator's rejection on the ground that the company did not accept any liability was found unsustainable as the books clearly showed the existence of the liability.
2. Limitation of the Claim:
The company claimed that any liability to the builders was time-barred. However, the court noted that the company had acknowledged the debt in a letter to the builders' lawyer on 19th June 1952, which extended the limitation period. The notice under section 46(5A) was served within three years of this acknowledgment. The court held that the claim by the Income-tax Officer was governed by Article 140 of the Limitation Act, which provides a 60-year limitation period for claims by the Central Government. Therefore, the claim was not barred by limitation at the time of the winding-up petition.
3. Preferential Payment Claim:
The Income-tax Officer claimed preferential payment under section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act, which prioritizes taxes due from the company to the Central Government. The court rejected this claim, stating that the liability was not a tax owed by the company but a statutory obligation to pay an amount due to another assessee. The court held that the Income-tax Officer's claim could only be treated as that of an ordinary creditor, not a preferential creditor.
Conclusion:
The court partially reversed the liquidator's order, admitting the Income-tax Officer's claim as an ordinary creditor for Rs. 14,503-12-9 but rejecting the claim for preferential payment. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1962 (9) TMI 6
Whether the State Governments are entitled to tax the three Ayurvedic preparations namely Mirtasanjibani, Mirtasanjibani Sudha and Mirtasanjibani Sura, which are manufactured by these petitioners, under the various Excise Act in force in the respective States?
Held that:- Allow the petitions and direct that these three medicinal preparations should not be taxed under the various Excise Acts in force in various States and can only be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act.
|
9911796707
