|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 387 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded yarn would justify the application of predominance test and such yarn would be classified as per the predominant component. In the case before us cotton component is 80 per cent to 85 per cent while viscose component is 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Merely because the viscose component is 15 per cent to 20 per cent there is no material on the basis of which we can say that the cotton yarn has ceased to exist or yarn that has come into existence has some different characteristic. We cannot say that the cotton yarn has lost its identity and characteristic as such because of mixing of 15 per cent to 20 per cent of viscose yarn. Thus, applying the test of predominance we are of the opinion that the sale of yarn by the applicant shall have to be regarded as sale of cotton yarn. 4.. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the department and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a show on any particular date and the said particular date is not forthcoming in the Act. 36.. It is not possible to accept this contention. There is no difficulty in imagining a situation when the entire seats are filled up and compute the possible collection from such admissions. There is no vagueness in the provision. It is obvious that the date for computation will be the date nearest when the exhibitor applies under section 4-A. Section 4-A itself provides that the option thereunder will have to be exercised once a year and shall be final in that year. No contention was advanced regarding the impracticability of working out various provisions to section 4-A and therefore we need not consider the same. It will not be in the interest of theatre owners themselves to have these provisions struck down. 37.. For the reasons stated above we find no merit in these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed and rule discharged. No order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 385 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 37 STC 378. The Supreme Court speaking through K. Ramaswami, J. opined thus Thus this Court accepted the meaning of accessories as an object or device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty or convenience or effectiveness of something else or is supplementary or secondary to something of greater or primary importance which assists in operating or controlling or may serve as aid or accessories. The arc carbon was held to be an accessory. We, therefore, find that the view of the Tribunal that arc carbon , even prior to the amendment of item 6 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, fall under item 6 is sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, since the only question involved stands settled by the Supreme Court in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 37 STC 378 and again in Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 1991 80 STC 233, the tax revision case fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 384 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve for the period between 31st March, 1982 and 14th September, 1982, only. In the view that we have taken, the petitioner will be entitled to the refund of the amount paid by it by way of sales tax in respect of the finished goods manufactured by it between 31st March, 1982 and 14th September, 1982. In the result, this petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus shall issue directing respondent No. 2 to issue sales tax deferment certificate to the petitioner effective for the period between 31st March, 1982 and 30th March, 1988. We are granting this relief even though the said period has expired because the petitioner can, even now, get certain benefits made available under the scheme. The respondents shall refund a sum of Rs. 6,57,853 (subject to verification) which the petitioner has paid by way of sales tax on the sales of finished goods made by it between 31st March, 1982 and 14th September, 1982. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 383 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... because the notice of demand initially issued on 31st December, 1971, was not in terms of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the said Act cannot vitiate the assessment order which was passed on that very day. The assessment order was passed within the period of limitation and we see no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the dealer that the assessment order is to be ignored and what is relevant is the notice of demand. There is no warrant for saying so as the taxing statute has to be literally construed and so construed it is evident that it is the assessment order which is to be passed within the time prescribed by subsection (2a) of section 11 and it is by the said assessment order by which the tax is determined. No other contention has been raised on behalf of the dealer. For the aforesaid reason we answer the aforesaid question of law in the affirmative and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 382 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve been included in entry No. 27, but that does not mean that any words of limitation or any qualifying words are to be added to entry No. 27 of the second notification. No principles of statutory construction would allow us to do so. As we have already observed, if there had been any ambiguity in understanding the import and effect of entry No. 27 of the second notification then, possibly, we could have seen other entries in this and the other list. But when entry No. 27 of the second notification is clear and unambiguous, there is no reason as to why it should not be given its full effect. All types of safety razor blades, all types of surgical instruments and all types of parts of machinery and plant have been taxed at 5 per cent as per the said entry 27 of the second notification. We, therefore, answer the two questions of law referred to this Court in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. There will be no order as to costs. References answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 381 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... epresentation and committed an offence under section 10(b) of the Act. The finding to the contrary recorded by the first appellate authority is based on surmises and conjectures and cannot be preferred over the findings recorded by the assessing authority as well as the Joint Commissioner regarding the making of the false representation by the assessee to secure a benefit to which it actually was not entitled. 19.. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, construing the provisions of section 10(b), read with section 10A of the Act strictly, we find that the assessee was rightly penalised for making a false representation, as contemplated by section 10(b) of the Act and the authorities rightly imposed the penalty in lieu of prosecution, after following the procedure envisaged by section 10A of the Act. The order of the Joint Commissioner under appeal, therefore, does not call for any interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 380 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch goods are put to, except for the purpose of spinning yarn out of them. Though as a result of the process employed by the assessee, it is able to sell cleaned mixture of polyester and cotton fibres of different colours separately, and also at a higher price, it cannot be said that the assessee is selling different goods having distinct identity and distinct use. For all these reasons, it will have to be held that though the assessee subjects the purchased goods to certain processes, those processes do not amount to or result in manufacture of a new commercial commodity and, therefore, the sale thereof would be covered by the definition of the word resale as given in section 2(26)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in taking that view. Accordingly we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 379 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Division Bench in the same judgment, we do not think that the observations made in the said judgment run, in anyway, counter to what we have said. However, the observations of the Division Bench to the effect that if it is shown that anyone or some of the three conditions stated in section 2(26) is not satisfied there would be no resale as defined by section 2(26), we are of the opinion that the same are obiter inasmuch the Division Bench has clearly observed that even without the definition of word resale it would not have been possible to hold that there was resale of same commodity which the assessee had purchased because kolshi and ash were two distinct commercial commodities. This decision of the Division Bench, therefore, does not run counter to the proposition we have set out. 9.. In the result, we answer both the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the State and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 378 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his notification was issued with an intention to give relief to agriculturist. This notification has been issued subsequently superseding all previous notifications. It is not denied that piston is also a spare part of tractor. In my view entry No. 11 of the Notification dated March 9, 1970 is general, whereas entry No. 3 of Notification dated March 6, 1978, is a specific entry. Consequently, in my view sales tax can be charged on pistons used in tractors at the rate of 4 per cent and not at the rate of 10 per cent as mentioned in entry No. 11 of the Government Notification dated March 9, 1970. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated November 30, 1989, passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside and I hold that sales tax on tractor pistons can be charged only in accordance with entry No. 3 of the Government Notification dated March 6, 1978 and not in accordance with entry No. 11 of the Government Notification dated March 9, 1970. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 377 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sound and logical. Keeping in view the nature of the transaction in the instant case, that is the sale of snuff which necessarily had to be sold in a packed form as is adverted to by the assessee and the inclusion of the price of the packing material in the price of the snuff sold, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the case of the assessee has to be accepted. When we accept it, it becomes abundantly clear and perfectly plain that section 7-A(1)(b) of the Act would have no application to the transaction in question. The answer to the question posed by us in the earlier part of this judgment would, therefore, have to be in the negative. The Joint Commissioner fell in error in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring that of the assessing authority. 5.. This tax appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 376 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and substance, not a provision imposing tax on sale or purchase of goods but seeks to tax events and activities subsequent to the purchase which do not fall within the parameters of the legislative powers of the State Legislature. The Legislature has, in our opinion, clearly overstepped its limits and sought to impose tax with respect to matters falling exclusively in the Union List. In the premise, the petitions succeed and are allowed. Section 3-AAAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (as it stands after its amendment by U.P. Act No. 12 of 1979) is declared null and void. The assessment orders made in these petitions by the assessing authorities based on that provision are also declared null and void and are quashed. The recovery proceedings including the demand notices initiated and issued against the petitioners for realisation of tax assessed under the aforesaid provision are also quashed. The petitioners of each petition shall be entitled to their costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 375 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... seen from the seizure order (annexure A ) that the respondent has invoked the power under section 28(3) to seize the documents from the petitioner s business place. He has not shown any other provision which empowers the respondent to make an order of seizure under section 28(3) in case of a carrier. It is also brought to my notice that no notice under section 28A(3A) is issued to the petitioner requiring production of any document or books or file any declaration or furnish such other particulars. It is clear from the action taken by the respondent that the procedure which he ought to have followed, viz., section 28A(3A) is given a go-by and has straightway resorted to seize the documents invoking section 28(3) which, in my opinion, was not permissible to do. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the order of seizure (annexure A ) is quashed. The respondent is directed to return the documents within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 374 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... dgment assessment can be made under the Central Act. The question may also to be looked into from another angle. If the contention of the dealer were correct, then a dealer could always escape his liability to be assessed under the Central Act because all he has to do is to refrain from filing a return or refuse to produce his books of accounts before the assessing authority. It is difficult for us to conceive that such could be the position in law. For the reasons stated above, we hold and we are of the considered opinion that, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessments made on 10th May, 1974, could not be said to be barred by limitation and that there is no bar to the framing of a best judgment assessment under the Central Act. We, accordingly, answer both the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the dealer, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs in all the five references. References answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 373 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alidity and continuity in existence of the 1966 notification is involved in this petition and as the petitioner has good case on merits, the application may not be dismissed on the ground of delay. In this connection, reference has been made to Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308 (SC), in which delay of 19 years in assailing a rule was not regarded as sufficient to close the doors of the court. Having found merit in the contention of the petitioner, we have not felt inclined to dismiss the petition on the ground of laches. 19.. In the result, the petition is allowed by stating that the Notification dated 8th December, 1966, bearing No. 43637-CTA-200/66-F, is still enforceable, because of which the demands raised against the petitioner for the assessment years in question cannot be realised, which shall, therefore, be treated as non est. In the facts and circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. D.M. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 372 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns and other copying papers and as such this authority is also not relevant to the facts of the present case. The settled principle is that the goods must be construed in the sense in which they are sold by the dealer and purchased by the consumer. It is they who are concerned with it. When a consumer asks a dealer to supply him papad , the dealer will supply him papad and not the gol papad. Both commodities are different commodities and it cannot be said that when papad has been exempted from tax, gol papad is also exempted from tax on the ground that gol papad is made of same raw material from which the papad has been made. Consequently, I allow the revision, set aside the order dated 17th March, 1986, passed by Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal and affirm the order dated 27th August, 1982, of the Additional Commissioner (Taxes), Rajasthan, and hold that gol papad which is manufactured by pulses, rice, maida, potato, sago, etc., is not exempted from sales tax. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 371 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ication is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated August 4, 1988, passed by the respondent No. 1 is set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to amend the manufacturing column of the registration certificate granted to the applicant under the Act of 1941 by inclusion of the item coconut oil in it with effect from the date of the application on March 21, 1985, within two weeks from this date. 14.. Since this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any matter concerning any tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, let the record of the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, as received from the Honourable High Court, Calcutta, on transfer under section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, be sent back to the Honourable High Court, Calcutta, along with a copy of this judgment for disposal of the matter under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 370 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fied as living micro-organism. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not agree with the learned Assistant Government Pleader that yeast is a product which can be more appropriately classified as living micro-organism, and therefore, it should be classified under entry 13 of Schedule III. As stated above, there is no dispute about the fact that yeast has capacity to bring about chemical reaction and change, and it is within the meaning of term chemical as defined by various dictionaries the definitions whereof are referred hereinabove. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative by holding that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that yeast sold by the opponent is a chemical covered by the expression dyes and chemicals as used in entry 9 of Schedule II, Part A to the said Act. We, therefore, answer the question against the State and in favour of the opponent. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 369 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in which the articles or goods can be placed. It can be of any type and yet would answer the description of packing material so long as it is used for that purpose. If it serves the purpose of putting together things compactly so as to make a bundle of those things, then it can be rightly described as packing material. Admittedly, the wooden pallets manufactured and sold by the assessee are used for the purpose of packing cement bags so as to prepare a bundle of certain number of cement bags which can be lifted as a bundle and put in a ship for transhipment for the purpose of their transport and sale. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in considering the wooden pallets as wooden frames falling within entry 12 of Schedule II, Part A to the Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, that is, against the department and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 368 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it petition) is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The case is sent back to the Divisional Level Committee to decide the review application afresh keeping in view of the declaration made by us in this judgment, so far the petition is concerned, in accordance with law. We further direct the Divisional Level Committee to dispose of the said review application within a period of three months from the date, the certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. The petitioners will produce the copy of the judgment made by us today within three weeks from today before the said authority. Until disposal of the said review application afresh further proceedings for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1988-89 both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Acts pending before the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) VII, Sales Tax, Ghaziabad shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid observation the present writ petition is being disposed of finally. Petition allowed.
........
|
