|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 553 Records
-
1999 (9) TMI 945 - ANDHRA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cisions of this Court wherein a conflicting opinion is alleged to have been expressed". 4. As far as the above principle is concerned, I am in entire agreement with the opinion of the learned Judge. 5. Now it has to be seen whether in the instant case, the case was tried in a summary manner or in a ordinary manner? The learned Counsel is right when he said that the evidence was elaboratively recorded in verbatim and the defence was given full scope to cross-examination. They were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, This clearly indicates that the ordinary procedure is adopted. The procedure adopted in no way indicates that it is summary procedure. That being case required it is not necessary to apply the embargo contained in Section 326(3) Cr.PC. Consequently it is not necessary to order for de novo enquiry. The order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to rely upon the evidence already on record and proceed with the case according to law. 6. Revision is allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 944 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rence in case of failure of the party to appear in person in a matter before the Court. But that by itself would not entitle the Court to direct the party to appear before the Court to discharge the burden of issues which lies on such person. The order in that regard will have necessarily to be speaking order. Undisputedly, the order does not disclose any reason apart from the fact that holder of the Power of Attorney is held to be not competent to depose on behalf of the principal. Once the said finding is set aside, the impugned order does not disclosed any justification for maintaining the direction to the plaintiff to step into the witness box to depose in the matter. 14. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Trial Court shall proceed with the matter from the stage where the deposition of P.W. 1 was interrupted after being partly recorded. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. 15. Petition succeed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 943 - EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
... ...
... ... ..... carried on by the establishments or organisations referred to in Article 13A(1)(b) and (g) was dependent on the legal form in which the taxable person carried on his activity. 21. The answer to the questions must therefore be that Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the terms 'other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature' and 'other organisations recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned', which appear in subparagraphs (b) and (g) of that provision respectively, do not exclude from that exemption natural persons running a business. Decision on costs Costs 22. The costs incurred by the United Kingdom, German and Netherlands Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the case pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
-
1999 (9) TMI 942 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tions and presumptions drawn are neither based upon the relevant rules or supported by any judicial verdict of this Court. Under the circumstances, the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18221/98 and 17310/98 filed by L.Chandrakishore Singh and N.Bijoy Singh are allowed by setting aside the judgment of the Full Bench. The writ petitions filed by the appellants are allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the officiating appointments of the appellants as the date of their regular appointment and re-fix their seniority in terms of the observations made in this judgment. Fresh seniority list shall be prepared in the light of our directions alongwith the consequential benefits under the law to the persons who are found to be senior. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) 4870/99 filed by Smt.Vandana Karki and Ors. shall stand dismissed. The appellants L.Chandrakishore Singh and N.Bijoy Singh are held entitled to costs of ₹ 10,000/- each to be paid by the Respondent-State.
-
1999 (9) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice sent by the complainant to the accused was returned as 'unclaimed.'? - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No doubt Section 138 of the Act does not require that the notice should be given only by 'post' therefore, uphold the conviction of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, but we set aside the sentence awarded by the High Court for enabling the trial court to pass orders on the question of sentence and the compensation, if any payable.
-
1999 (9) TMI 940 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was no agreement in writing between the parties requiring the disputes arising out of the contract being referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of GAFTA ?
Held that:- The case at hand is clearly covered by Exception 1 to Section 28. Right of the parties to have recourse to legal action is not excluded by the agreement. The parties are only required to have their dispute/s adjudicated by having the same referred to arbitration. Merely because the arbitrators are situated in a foreign country cannot by itself be enough to nullify the arbitration agreement when the parties have with their eyes open willingly entered into the agreement. Moreover, in the case at hand the parties have willingly initiated the arbitration proceedings on the disputes having arisen between them. They have appointed arbitrators, participated in arbitration proceedings and suffered an award. The plea raised before us was not raised either before or during arbitration proceedings, nor before the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the objections filed before him, nor in the Letters Patent Appeal filed before the Division Bench. Such a plea is not available to be raised by the appellant Atlas before this Court for the first time.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no fault with the award having been made rule of the Court by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed
-
1999 (9) TMI 939 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... p. Similarly, inspection can be somewhere in between the point of despatch and point of receipt or may be at the check-post. Right of inspection or the requirement to furnish the document are only the provisions which have been made to safeguard the larger public interest of paying the due tax in accordance with law. The assent of the President was not required and we do not consider that it is a case of creating any restriction on the right to carry on business or in movement of goods from one State to another or being violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India. 30.. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed. 31.. Since we have directed the learned counsel for the petitioners that we will not examine each and every case with reference to levy of penalty, we consider it proper that petitioner may file appeal within three weeks from today. If the appeal is filed within three weeks no objection regarding limitation would be raised. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 938 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... could be considered that it is a works contract where property which is transferred in paper is only incidental to such contract. In strict sense, it is a service where the main object is not transfer of property in goods. The good photograph as observed by the apex Court is a thing of beauty and revives nostalgic memories. It is a work of art. In B.C. Kame s case 1977 39 STC 237 (SC) it has already been held that there is no sale involved and in spite of the fact that it is a works contract it could not be subjected to tax because the intention of the parties is not to transfer the goods in the execution of said works contract. It is only ancillary and incidental to service contract. The photographs are not marketable or saleable commodity and as such no tax can be levied. Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, therefore is beyond the scope of article 366 of the Constitution of India. Writ appeals are accordingly allowed. Writ appeals allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 937 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the prospective buyer. The construction was done under the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sales, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972. The prospective buyer has right of inspection during construction under clause (x) of the agreement the developer is deemed to be owner only when the building constructed is not taken or acquired by any person at the time the building is ready for occupation. There is transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the contract. A finding of fact is recorded that the purchasers have acquired right/interest in plot of land on which the flats were to be constructed and as such the appellant had acted as a contractor for construction of the flats for them. The conclusion which have been drawn on the basis of various clauses of agreements and cannot be said to be illegal. 22.. In the light of the above, we find no merit in the appeals and the appeals having no force are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 936 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fresh objections filed by the manufacturers-traders. 17.. We have noted that there were 33 writ petitioners, out of whom only 17 have filed the appeals. This order is being passed in respect of these 17 writ petitioners. Since we are setting aside the order of the single Judge, the order passed in this case would be applicable mutatis mutandis to the writ petitioners who have not filed the appeals. This has been done in order to avoid filing of appeals later by those writ petitioners who have not preferred appeal, for getting similar relief. Manufacturers/traders shall be at liberty to file objections within six weeks. In case such objections are filed they be considered without objection to the limitation/time prescribed in the notice under section 12-A of the KST Act. This order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these appeals and shall not be taken as a precedent for any future reference. 18.. Appeals are allowed in the above terms. Appeals allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 935 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ating Act has validated the actions taken by the assessing authority in framing the assessment. The retrospective operation of the validating Act was within the legislative competence. Whether the exemption should have been given from the date of the decision of this Court till the date the validating Act came into force was the matter of legislative discretion and the courts have no say and as observed above in view of the law laid down by the apex Court, there is bound to be some gap and if the tax is levied for that period it cannot be considered to be beyond the competence of the Legislature. It was because of the judgment given by this Court it had become necessary for the Legislature to intervene and remove the defect pointed out and simply because there was no proviso in force during the period August 18, 1993 to March 5, 1996 the provisions of section 5(1-A) cannot be considered to be ultra vires the Constitution. Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 934 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... venue which is necessary for public good. Therefore, a successor-in-office must, in the very nature of things, continue a statutory proceeding according to law. At one stage a particular kind of satisfaction is required. At another stage of the same proceeding that particular kind of satisfaction may not be required to be arrived at afresh. But in the present case, as already discussed, Sri B.L. Baski has clearly indicated by his action that he had the same kind of satisfaction and he concurred with the satisfaction of Sri M.C. Poddar. 11.. Thus, all the contentions fail. The application in RN-255 of 1999 is dismissed. The application in RN-256 of 1999 is allowed. The order dated June 3, 1999 passed by respondent No. 1 for the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1992 is set aside. No order is made for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application No. RN-255 of 1999 dismissed. Application No. RN-256 of 1999 allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 933 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was not consumed in the manufacture and was not a component or part in one form or other. But the explanation provides that consumes such goods in the manufacture shall also include goods consumed for ancillary purposes in or for such manufacture . The ancillary purpose would be for burning as fuel and, therefore the definition as under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act are not relevant. The decision given thereunder cannot be relied upon. Under Karnataka Sales Tax Act goods can be consumed for manufacture. Use of fuel is for manufacture of goods. 8.. This Court in the case of Vengamma Trust v. State of Karnataka 1994 93 STC 207, has considered the liability of purchase tax on purchases of kerosene and diesel from unregistered dealers and upheld the levy. 9.. In view of this decision, we feel that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in upholding the liability of purchase tax. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 932 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on purchaser was held not liable to pay the dues of old consume of electricity in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1995) 2 SCC 648 as the demand of arrears are contractual liability. In Rambali Bhuleshwar v. Sales Tax Officer 1961 12 STC 595 (Bom) sale by Collector in the course of recovery proceedings was not considered a case of transfer of business. In Santokh Singh Karam Singh of Malout v. Punjab State 1973 31 STC 77 (P and H) transfer was of entire stock and tenancy right. In State of Orissa v. Raja Stores 1987 65 STC 82 (Orissa) the transfer was of stock in trade. The petitioner being the purchasers in the auction from the State Financial Corporation, only of the land, building, plant and machinery could This case was affired by Supreme Court in 2000 120 STC 610 (SC). not be considered to be transferee as the entire assets and liabilities including the goodwill of the business has not been transferred. Petitions are accordingly allowed. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 931 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t in the category of scents and perfumes. The Tribunal s order does not mention that any of the aforesaid goods is used as scents and perfumes by people. The uses to which these things are stated to be put are only as blending materials for soaps, detergents, powder, creams, agarbattis, deodorants, sprays, etc. None of them is mentioned to be in direct use as a scent or perfume. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the aforesaid articles possess smells of various types, they were not used directly as scents and perfumes and were used only as a blending material for the preparation of various things, some of which may be categorised as scents and perfumes. The aforesaid items were, therefore, taxable only as chemicals and the Tribunal was wrong in upholding their taxability as scents and perfumes. 8.. These revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and the Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh orders on the dealer s appeals in accordance with this judgment. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 930 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eriod of six years had expired. In my view, that is a question which shall be determined by the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals while hearing the appeal on merit and is not within the scope of the present revision. Sri Kesharwani then argues that a writ on the question of remission is pending before this honourable court. That in my view cannot affect the maintainability of the appeal. Shri Kesharwani has also referred to rules 67 and 68 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, but in my view, these rules have no relevancy so far as the controversy in hand in concerned. 22.. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (appeals) holding that the appeal was not maintainable and confirmed by the Trade Tax Tribunal cannot be sustained. 23.. The revision is, therefore, allowed. Impugned orders are set aside and the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals is directed to dispose of the appeal on merit in accordance with law. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 929 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d counsel for the petitioners. We, therefore, uphold the orders of the Tribunal. 11.. Coming to T.R.C. No. 46 of 1991, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee with regard to the jurisdiction that an order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was revised by the Deputy Commissioner, who is an officer of equivalent rank. It was stated by the learned counsel that under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the Deputy Commissioner has got the power to revise the orders of his subordinate officers and not the order of an officer, who is of an equivalent rank. The action of the Deputy Commissioner in revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is clearly without jurisdiction. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and restore that of the order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner. 12.. In the result, T.R.C. Nos. 31, 129, 130, 131 and 133 of 1991 are dismissed and T.R.C. No. 46 of 1991 is allowed. No costs.
-
1999 (9) TMI 928 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me being in force and shall be added to the amount of tax and be also deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax but the penalty can be imposed only after the assessing authority is satisfied that there do not exist sufficient reasons for delayed payment of the tax due. 13.. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1990 76 STC 421 (All.) 1989 UPTC 1074, which has been followed in a number of subsequent decisions it was held that if the tax due deposited along with interest the penalty under section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act cannot be imposed. In my view, mere fact of deposit of the tax due along with interest after passing of the penalty order cannot be a sufficient ground for sustaining the penalty order. 14.. In this view of the matter, both the revisions succeed and the same are hereby allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) are restored. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 927 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cess. We are not inclined to go into this question as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. We repeat that in so far as deduction under rule 6(1)(l) is concerned, we have gone into that question for the reason that the Commissioner s circular which is contrary to law stands in the way of the assessing authority. 20.. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned assessment orders in so far as the amount arrived at by the assessing authority for the purpose of deduction under rule 6(1)(l) are set aside and the assessing authorities are directed to make fresh assessments without reference to the circular of the Commissioner and in the light of the observations made by us. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. W.P. Nos. 7686 and 10908 of 1999 That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the honourable Mr. M.S. Liberhan, Chief Justice on this Friday the tenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 926 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on (6-A) of section 22 on the grant of stay shall be given due effect and the direction contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (6) should be read subservient to subsection (6-A) so as not to whittle down the operation of the embargo. In other words, the power of the High Court to grant other directions in terms of the proviso to sub-section (6) is not plenary in nature and cannot have the effect of making the embargo contained under sub-section (6-A) otiose and ineffective. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken in the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Bharath Litho Press 1987 67 STC 48 and BPL Ltd. 2000 117 STC 373. We affirm the view taken by the Division Bench in C.M.P. No. 17575 of 1992 in T.R.C. No. 78 of 1992. 36.. Accordingly, we answer the reference in favour of Revenue. The TRCs together with the stay petitions filed therein shall be placed before the regular Tax Bench for determination according to law. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.
........
|
