|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 303 Records
-
1995 (9) TMI 352 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd Distributing Co. of India Ltd. 1973 31 STC 426, Indian Express (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1987 67 STC 474, The Hindu v. State of Tamil Nadu 1987 67 STC 477 and the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore 1986 63 STC 252 to contend that the petitioner is liable to get itself registered. 4.. The matter is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Syndicate Bank v. Commercial Tax Officer 1995 99 STC 52 ILR 1995 Kar 1753. It is clear that the petitioner even though a banking company, has to register itself as a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Hence there is no error of jurisdiction on the part of the first respondent in issuing the impugned notices. 5.. Accordingly the petition is rejected. The petitioner is however granted two months time to comply with the notices. Sri Shimoga Subbanna, learned High Court Government Pleader, to file memo of appearance within 4 weeks. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 351 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,000 levied by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 1,500. For reduction of penalties also no plausible explanation was found in the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the department has not come up by way of revision against the order passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee requests this Court to give some concession in the matter of reducing the suppressed sales turnover and the penalty. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, it is not possible to accept the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. Further, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal itself was very much lenient in reducing the suppressed sales turnover to rupees two lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1,500. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in respect of both quantum and penalty. 6.. In the result, this tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 350 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted anywhere, would be to help the consumers on whom the ultimate burden rests. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that the object of the notification would be to help the small dealers in bakery business. If that is the object, that would have been stated in the preamble portion of the notification. But there was no such mention in the notification. The fact remains that in the earlier notification it was stated that any dealer is entitled to exemption, but in the latter notification it is stated that a dealer alone would be entitled to exemption. This would not postulate that a dealer dealing in other products along with bakery products will not be entitled to exemption. 4.. Considering all these aspects, we find that the Tribunal was correct in granting exemption to the assessee on the sale turnover of bakery products amounting to Rs. 1,94,076 which is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 349 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aph that interest is payable to the assessee under rule 35(1)(b) if the order is made by any appellate or revisional authority. We have seen the relevant provisions contained in rule 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there was unexplained delay on the part of the respondents in sending the refund voucher to the petitioners despite the order passed by the Assessing Authority on December 18, 1991 (see annexure P-1). In our opinion, the provisions of rule 35(1)(a) are attracted and the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment. The respondents are directed to pay the interest from January 1, 1992 till May 3, 1994, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The respondents are directed to pay the said amount of interest expeditiously and preferably before December 31, 1995. The writ petition to stand disposed of in the abovesaid terms. Writ petition allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 348 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the first point. There is no bar under the sales tax laws whereby the seller, i.e., intermediary and retailer of medicine cannot realise the amount of tax from its immediate purchaser/consumers. Nothing to that effect has been brought to the notice of the court. Provisions of the Price Control Order, 1987 and 1995 specifically permit the realisation of local tax if paid as discussed above. This tax which has been realised by the intermediary or the retailer is in fact only by way of reimbursement of taxes already paid at the first point and the said amount by way of tax is realised by the sales tax authorities at the first point. As such the question of further levy of tax on the retailers or intermediary does not arise. In the premises, I allow this petition by making the rule absolute and quash the notification dated December 15, 1982 and the notice dated October 15, 1987, issued by the Commissioner of Taxes and Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 347 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by rejected. For the reasons recorded above, these writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders, annexure P194 (in C.W.P. No. 1898 of 1992), annexure P715 (in C.W.P. No. 5864 of 1992) and annexure P29 (in C.W.P. No. 5404 of 1993) are set aside. All these matters are remitted to the Assessing Authority to reopen the whole issue and decide the controversy involved in view of the law laid down by us, both with regard to branch transfers and consignment to agents. The Assessing Authority would decide the aforesaid contentious issues between the parties keeping in view the proposition of law as enunciated above and would deal with each item suspect of either being inter-State sale, branch transfer or consignment to agents on the parameters of law laid down by us. The matter, as mentioned above, would be dealt by the highest taxing authority in the district other than the District of Hisar. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 346 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctionary, it is described as any direction of a court or authority other than a judgment or decree made in a case. Purrill describes it as any direction in writing requiring or authorising some act to be done. Refusal to grant certified copy of the order sheet so far as it relates to orders concerning the petitioner is not in accordance with law. 6.. We direct the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Circle (opposite party No. 2) to communicate the reasons in writing to the petitioner for which purpose the petitioner shall appear before the opposite party No. 2 on September 25, 1995. The Sales Tax Officer shall also consider the application for certified copy of the order sheet afresh keeping in view the observations made above, and the conditions stipulated in rule 87 of the Rules. The writ applications are disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department. P.C. NAIK, J.I agree. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (9) TMI 345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... specify and to mention specifically have the same meaning. 8.. Further, in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Sivaram AIR 1963 Mad. 294 at 296 it has been held that specified place referred to in section 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, must have been intended to refer not to a vast area in general terms like a big city, but a place indicated with sufficient precision to enable the person, who wants to charge the maker with liability to resort to him readily. 9.. In the light of the abovesaid dictionary meanings and decisions, it cannot be said that the abovesaid voltage stabilizers have been mentioned specifically or stated precisely or in explicit terms or named expressly or particularly in the abovesaid entry 4 or 5 when it uses the expression accessories thereof generally. 10.. The net result is, in the present case, entry 41-A alone will apply and not entry 4 or 5. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the tax case revision is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 344 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d should not be a mere pretence. 4.. As observed by this Court in Suburban Industries Kalinga Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar 1993 90 STC 280 (speaking through one of us, A. Pasayat, J.), reasons are not to be indicated in the notice issued to the dealer while initiating the proceeding. But if the dealer responds and participates in the proceeding, it is open to him to seek for the reasons which necessitated the reopening of the proceeding. At that stage the assessing officer cannot take the plea that the reasons are not to be indicated. 5.. In the aforesaid background, we direct that in case the petitioner appears before the concerned Sales Tax Officer, i.e., opposite party No. 4 on September 25, 1995, reasons necessitating the reopening and the materials on the basis of which the assessing officer proposes to act shall be communicated to it in writing. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. P.C. NAIK, J.I agree. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (9) TMI 343 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emitting an agreeable odour either when burned or by the application of some foreign matter to induce any chemical reaction which results in fragrant odours being released from that substance. Dhoop and dhoop-batti , therefore, fall within the category of perfume under item No. 37 and their sales are liable to the higher rate of single point tax of one anna per rupee which is the tax declared in the notification and not the multipoint sales tax of only three pies in the rupee. In my opinion, the Assessing Authority has acted legally in assessing the petitioner for the year 1978-79 by imposing tax at the rate of 10 per cent on the goods, namely, dhoop and agarbatti. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Since the court had stayed the recovery of tax from the petitioner, it shall not be open to the respondents to recover the tax along with interest with effect from the date of passing of the assessment order. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lant has all along been claiming the benefit of lower rate of tax bringing the commodity in question under entry 1 of Schedule IV to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and it is the assessing authority for the first time, brought the commodity to tax under section 5(1) of the Act. Therefore, we fail to understand as to how the Commissioner could have drawn an inference that the tax had been collected at the rate prescribed under section 5(1) of the Act. After all, in this case, the commodity used is only for domestic purpose for consumption as combustible material by poorer class of people. Thus, when the Legislature in its wisdom had thought it fit to levy lower rate of tax on the commodity by giving an expanded meaning to coal, that object is defeated by adopting a strange interpretation on the provisions of the Act which we strongly deprecate. The appellant is therefore, entitled to costs. Costs are quantified in a sum of Rs. 2,500. 6.. Appeal allowed with costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 341 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r provisions of this Act . It has been made more explicit by further declaring under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6B of the Act to the effect that no other deduction shall be made from the total turnover of a dealer for the purpose of this section . This means that except the deductions provided under the first proviso to section 6B(1) nothing else can be deducted from the total turnover as defined under section 2(u-2) for the purpose of levy of turnover tax under section 6B of the Act. 13.. For these reasons, in my opinion, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have no substance. It is accordingly held that despite of exemptions granted under notifications annexures C and D in respect of purchase of plastic scraps as raw materials and the sale of finished goods being plastic wares, petitioners are liable to levy of turnover tax under section 6B of the Act. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but without costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 340 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other item and then sell them off and that therefore, there is a violation of the provisions of the CST Act. Even though we consider that the transformers can be treated as machinery, according to the reasons given by us hereinabove, the fact remains that the assessee is not selling them as such transformers. They are fitted in panels and then sold them away as electrical control board. Therefore, what was sold by the assessee was electrical control board and not transformers, as such. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is not justified in deleting the penalty in so far as transformers are concerned. 9.. In the result, the penalty levied by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in so far as transformers are concerned, shall stand restored and the appeals by the department are allowed in part to the above extent and in other respects, the appeals are dismissed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall stand. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 339 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned for determining the price of the product. In these circumstances, the only irresistible inference is that there was no implied sale of packing material and no sales tax could have been charged on the so-called price of packing material. 6.. The Tribunal held that the sale of coal tar to Shalimar Tar Products is inter-State sale. The assessee was not satisfied with the finding, but the finding is in accord with the decision in Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes 1975 35 STC 445 (SC) AIR 1975 SC 887. We find no illegality in the decision. 7.. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative by holding that the sale is inter-State sale, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 8.. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Board of Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (9) TMI 338 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... led as payable as per the conclusion in the process of assessment. 10.. Following the decision, therefore, it will have to be held that the two demand notices as well as the two show cause notices (collectively exhibits P1 to P4) would have to be held as unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as well as on the ground of proceeding to demand on an erroneous basis when the amounts are not admitted. The petition succeeds as above and as a consequence the two demand notices (exhibits P1 and P2) as well as the two show cause notices (exhibits P3 and P4) are quashed and set aside leaving the authority to proceed with the assessment in accordance with law and above considerations. Needless to state that the authority would proceed on the basis of the demands as stated above and then consider the question of issue of show cause notice. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 337 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as not correct in holding that softwood is not timber and would not fall under entry 84 of the First Schedule. Hence, the enhancement petition was filed to tax the sale of softwood at single point at 5 per cent. Under this head, the sale of wattle, blue gum should be taxed at single point rate as timber. The above goods can be classified as firewood or as timber, according to the Tribunal and even if it is treated as timber, the assessee is only a second dealer and the transaction cannot be taxed. It is on this ground, the enhancement petition was dismissed. The reason given by the Tribunal for not taxing the sale value of wattle, blue gum since it is only a second sale, is in accordance with the earlier order passed by this Court in T.C. 730 of 1983 dated December 19, 1984. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the enhancement petition. Hence, all the revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 336 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dhya Pradesh v. Garg Dal Mill, Lashkar 1995 99 STC 137 (MP) (1995) 28 VKN 65 did not consider the earlier decisions of the court and does not lay down the correct law. The decision in Renomal Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P. 1984 MPLJ 585 lays down the law correctly. 18.. For the reasons indicated above, we hold that the question referred to in M.C.C. No. 454 of 1986 and the first question referred to in other three cases have to be answered in the negative and the second question referred to in these three cases has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The authorities were not right in ignoring the evidentiary value of the non-affixture of the rubber stamp endorsement on the bills as required under section 7 of the Act. In the face of such non-affixture, the burden is on the Revenue to show that the goods are local goods of which the assessee caused entry to be made into another local area. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (9) TMI 335 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... establish that the said transactions evidenced by the slips related to sales or purchases. The learned Additional Government Pleader very strongly relied on section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in support of this revision petition. Section 10 merely states The burden of proving that any dealer or any of his transactions is not liable to tax under this Act shall lie on such dealer. The word transactions occurring in the section certainly cannot mean any transaction whatever, and read in the context of the section occurring in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the word transaction can only mean transaction of sale or purchase. Once it is found by the Tribunal that the slips did not evidence any transaction of sales or purchases, there is no question of section 10 being attracted. 18.. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 334 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in a place where the Sales Tax Act is in force, and if he claims that he did not sell such goods but removed them from the jurisdiction of such sales tax authorities, then it is for the person who sets up such a contention to prove the same. In the result, we find that, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the authorities were justified in inferring that the petitioner sold the photographic goods and suppressed the turnover relating to the same, and in estimating the turnover suppressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned the as reduced by the Tribunal. The said conclusion is clearly a finding of fact. See the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in New Dwaraka Lunch Home v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 91 STC 36. We, therefore, do not find that the order of the Tribunal impugned before us warrants interference by this Court under section 22 of the Act. The tax revision case is therefore dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (9) TMI 333 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... leads to conflicts and creates certain anomalies which could never have been intended by the Legislature. and he submits that on the authority of this case, the question of declaring this rule 22 to be ultra vires of section 21 does not arise. But as indicated above, I am bound by the judgment in (1990) 1 GLR 237 (India Corbon Ltd. v. State of Assam). In view of that matter, I declare that rule 22 of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Rules is ultra vires of section 21 to the extent that the Rule visualises charging of interest on tax assessed as distinguished from the tax due as per return. As a result, interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return, and that too from registered dealers. The levy of interest as done in these cases shall stand quashed. All the civil rules shall stand disposed of as indicated above holding that pine square beams are converted timbers and that interest can be realised only on the basis of tax due as per return. Petitions allowed.
........
|
