|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 553 Records
-
1999 (9) TMI 925 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unreasonable to demand sales tax which was otherwise due for the period prior to commencement of Act 18 of 1996. We therefore consider it just and proper to grant relief to the petitioners in the above seven writ petitions to this limited extent. However, if the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 22114 of 1996, 35822 of 1997, 12026 of 1999 and 12030 of 1999 are found eligible to get the final eligibility certificate as per the directions given in the earlier part of this judgment, they will be entitled to full exemption from sales tax. Accordingly, it is clarified. In the result, the Writ Petition Nos. 22114 of 1996, 22115 of 1996, 22116 of 1996, 35822 of 1997, 11157 of 1999, 12026 of 1999 and 12030 of 1999 are disposed of with the above directions. The rest of the writ petitions-W.P. Nos. 35024 of 1997, 22112 of 1996, 22113 of 1996, 25028 of 1996, 25030 of 1996, 12098 of 1999, 11152 of 1999, 15097 of 1999, 15098 of 1999 and 15114 of 1999 are dismissed. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (9) TMI 924 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e had some reservations in passing any order of the kind indicated in the above order. However, no interim order of stay or the alike having been passed as in other cases, the plea that the petitioner should be compensated by grant of interest cannot be rejected. In deference to the aforesaid interim order we are of the view that the petitioner should be allowed interest on the amount collected by virtue of the impugned provisions. In the circumstances of the case we fix the interest at 10 per cent per annum. Reported in 2000 117 STC 41 (Pat). Here italicised. 6.. This writ petition is accordingly allowed, all actions and things taken/ done under the impugned provisions are held to be bad. The petitioner is held entitled to interest on the amount collected under section 25-A of the Act at 10 per cent per annum. It will be open to the petitioner to apply for refund/ adjustment which shall be made within 12 weeks of the application. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 923 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as undertaken to supply explosives and accessories to CIL and public sector undertakings against indents placed by the collieries and subsidiary companies of the CIL and public sector undertakings at various places outside the State. Such types of contract cannot be treated either as a binding contract or an agreement to sell the goods mentioned therein. It is merely a standing order to supply goods as and when indented during the specified period and at the specified rates. Thus the movement of goods has no relationship or link with any pre-existing contract of sale............ The Tribunal also took note of the decisions rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Andhra Pradesh High Court under similar facts and circumstances in assessee s case for 1978-79 taking a view similar to that taken by it. That being the position, we are not inclined to entertain these applications which fail and are dismissed. B.P. DAS, J.-I agree. Applications dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 922 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gust 25, 1994, copy of which has been placed as annexure CA 1 to the counter-affidavit, the Commissioner had a right of appeal against the decision of the Divisional Level Committee by virtue of an amendment in section 10(2) of the Act effective from May 14, 1994 and, therefore, he could not have taken a different view on the subject in exercise of powers under section 4-A(3) for this. He placed reliance on my judgment in Mansarovar Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax 1999 115 STC 530 (All.) 1999 UPTC 864 in which such a view was taken and it was held that the Commissioner had no authority under section 4-A(3) to cancel an eligibility certificate on a debatable point when he could appeal against the decision of the Divisional Level Committee. For this reason also, the order of the Commissioner in this case, i.e., M/s. R.K. Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. was bad. In the result I find no force in these revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 921 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tted. Viewed from any angle, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is unsustainable. 8.. Admittedly, in this case, there is no such previous written sanction either by the State Government or by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. Therefore, the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripeta, should not have taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ganapavaram. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued declaring the complaint petition filed by the assistant Commercial Tax Officer First respondent, which was taken cognizance of by the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripeta Second respondent as S.T.C. No. 107 of 1989 on his file, as illegal and void. No costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the honourable Mr. M.S. Liberhan, Chief Justice on this Friday the third day of September, one thousand nine hundred and ninty nine. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 920 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention and consequently, allowed the appeal. The question involved in these four revisions is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court rendered in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (now known as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1986 63 STC 246 1986 UPTC 139 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow 1987 67 STC 227 (1987) UPTC 26. Therefore, these revisions have no merits and the same are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 919 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal. Apart from the principle that in the case of reasonable doubt as to which entry of tax schedule applies, the benefit would go to the assessee, a perusal of the G.O. makes it clear that the concessional rate is made applicable to the tiles. No distinction is made between different categories of tiles, viz., mosaic, marble, granite, etc. Hence we see no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is dismissed at the admission stage. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 918 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... estaurants more particularly of that area who have maintained proper books of accounts also the purchase price of the material and the sale price of the finished goods shall also be enquired. Even the percentage of expenses vis-a-vis could also be enquired. Necessary information would be gathered for that purpose and thereafter, a fresh show cause notice shall be given to the assessee and thereafter the best judgment assessment on the basis of the information so received shall be framed ignoring the figures and formulas adopted in the past. The best judgment assessment and determination of turnover must be based on some evidence on record. The opportunity is required to be given to comply principles of natural justice. If the assessee fails to co-operate and does not furnish information, the respondents would be free to make their own best judgment on the basis of enquiry conducted. 10.. The appeals are disposed of with the above observation. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (9) TMI 917 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nest and fair the dealer shall not incur any liability to pay interest. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal has pointed out that the dealer has deposited the amount of tax on the freight part of the turnover also at a subsequent stage. In the opinion of the court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the dealer is not liable to make payment of interest on the unpaid part of the tax. To this extent the judgment and order of the Tribunal deserve to be modified. 19.. The revisions are partly allowed. So far as the tax liability of the revisionist on the freight part of the turnover is concerned, the decision of the Tribunal is upheld. So far as the liability of interest on part of the tax deposited with delay is concerned, the orders of the Tribunal and the authorities below are set aside and it is held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the dealer shall not be liable to pay interest on the such part of the tax. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 916 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... tion 7-A is attracted in this case, notwithstanding the fact that section 3(7) imposes a tax on the sale of the I.V. fluid which cannot be sold without the containers and therefore the containers are also subjected to tax at the sale point. We have also held that sub-clause (a) of section 7-A(1) is satisfied in this case and therefore, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct, though for different reasons. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly pointed out that tax under section 7-A will get attracted only from January 1, 1987 when the word uses was introduced in sub-clause (a) of section 7-A(1) of the Act. In fine, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is confirmed and the tax revision case is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 8th day of September, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 915 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... berately collected sales tax and surcharge on second sales when no such amount could be collected in accordance with the Act and Rules. Therefore, this is a clear case of violation which would not have come to light but for the vigilant check of accounts by the assessing authority. Thus, this deliberate wilful illegal collection of sales tax and surcharge warrants penalty and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially reduced the quantum of penalty considering the credit notes issued by the assessee which is the foundation for the present plea in this case. Thus, we find that there is absolutely no case to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly the tax revision case filed by the assessee is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 24th day of September, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 914 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r baby milk) and milkproducts excluding (1) products sold in sealed containers, (2) sweetmeats, (3) ghee, (4) butter, cream and cheese, (5) ice-cream and ice-candy, (6) kulfi, (7) milk shake and (8) lassi. 4.. The Tribunal on a consideration of the facts of the case including the process of manufacture and sale has held that the commodity sold is basically milk and is, therefore, exempt from tax. I have been taken through the Tribunal s order. The facts are not in dispute and the Tribunal s decision does not seem to suffer from any illegality. The mere fact that the product is put in bottles with caps will not change the nature of the product. If the product is milk even its sale in sealed bottles would not make it taxable because the exclusion applies to milk product sold in sealed containers and not to milk itself. I, therefore, do not find any ground for interference in the Tribunal s finding. The revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 913 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... utilised for the purpose of making toilet requisites such as soaps, powders or cosmetics and various other items, were not taxable as scents and perfumes. In Mettur Sandalwood Oil Co. v. State of Madras 1965 16 STC 9 also the Madras High Court held sandalwood oil was not a perfume though it was used for making perfumes. In G. Radhakrishna Murthi and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer-IVB, Vijayawada 1999 113 STC 161 1998 (2) UPTC 906, the honourable Supreme Court held that agarbattis were not taxable as scents and perfumes. Therefore, the oils in question which are not shown to be used as scents or perfumes by direct application to the body cannot be treated as scents or perfumes and the Commissioner s order on this point was untenable. I find that the Tribunal has rightly held that the aforesaid goods were covered by the description oils of all kinds and are, therefore, taxable as such. This revision petition, therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 911 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... heard. The corrigendum which was made in violation of the proviso to section 20, which is based on the principles of natural justice, cannot stand. We, therefore, set aside the corrigendum dated May 18, 1998, of the Competent Authority issued under section 20. It is open to the Competent Authority to take steps in accordance with law with regard to rectification of mistakes in the order dated March 31, 1998. In exercise of the powers vested in us under rule 14 of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1986, we direct the appellants not to dispose, alienate or let into possession third parties, in respect of the properties mentioned in the corrigendum, which were directed to be read in the place of corresponding properties mentioned in the order dated March 31, 1998, for a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the corrigendum dated May 18, 1998, stands set aside and with the above direction, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 910 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Additional appeals by Department - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority granted reliefs to the appellants, the Revenue should have filed 44 appeals. Instead they chose to file only one appeal. When that appeal came up for final decision before this Tribunal, the prayers made by the Department to allow them to file additional appeals in 43 other cases were rejected. 3. emsp The issue raised in all the 44 appeals were the same. This Tribunal while disposing of the appeal, which was filed by the Department, pronounced on merits on the issue, which was agitated by the Department. That finding arrived at by this Tribunal has become final. It is binding between the parties. That decision which has become final is sought to be interfered with by preferring 43 appeals. This attempt of the Department is illegal and unsustainable. So in the light of the earlier decision rendered by this Tribunal, we do not find our way to entertain these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (9) TMI 909 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the representative who appeared before the adjudicating authority was not representative of M/s. Birat Soap Industries, but was representing M/s. Birat Soap and Chemical Industries which appears to be a different unit altogether. However, I find that nothing contrary has been placed on record by the appellants in support of their defence. The import of beef tallow came into light, when on an intelligence and after keeping a close watch on the movement of the consignment, the consignment of tallow was located and the appellants were called upon to submit documents/evidence related to the subject importation. As such I uphold the findings of the authorities below that the shipping agent M/s. Crescent Shipping Agency is associated with the illegal import of the seized tallow into India. However, taking into account overall facts and circumstances I reduce the penalty upon him from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-. But for the above modification the impugned order is otherwise upheld.
-
1999 (9) TMI 908 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Newsprint - Exemption - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ication lists for this period were approved. We also find that in the clas shy sification lists, the appellants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 163/67 as amended by Notification No. 72/76, dated 16-3-1976. In terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cotspun Ltd. (supra), the demands in this case are not enforceable and sustainable in law. 13. emsp In so far as classification of pulp is concerned, we note that Chap shy ter heading is very clear after 1-3-1986. We note that newsprint is manufactured on a twin high-speed paper machine with a mixture of chemical and chemi-mechanical pulps in the ratio of 30 to 70 . Having regard to this fact, we hold that benefit of Notification No. 163/67 as amended by Notification No. 72/76, dated 16-3-1976 will not be admissible to the newsprint manufactured by the appellant. 14. emsp In the circumstance, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1999 (9) TMI 907 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Seizure of foreign currencies from the baggage ... ... ... ... ..... this tag which the appellant is making a prayer for supply of. There is nothing on record to show that this baggage tag was supplied to them. In any case I find that the impugned Order has been passed without hearing the appellant. When the appellant has made a request for deferring the date of hearing vide their letter dated 5-10-1998 on the ground of non-supply of the said baggage tag it was the duty of the adjudicating authority to make the position clear in respect of the said baggage tag and then proceed for hearing and deciding the case. In these circumstances I think it fit to remand the case to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded, without expressing any opinion on any of the pleas taken by the appellant before me. The appellant is at liberty to raise the issues before the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. As the appeal has been allowed, stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
1999 (9) TMI 906 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication - Ex parte order - Hearing ... ... ... ... ..... llants to that effect. 4. emsp After hearing the submissions made from both the sides and after going through the impugned order I find that the same has been passed ex parte. Only one opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellants. In my views the adjudicating authority ought to have granted another personal hearing to the appellants in the interest of justice. Otherwise also I find that there is nothing in the impugned order to show as to how and when the notice for personal hearing fixed for 9-10-1998 was issued to them. In any case the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the defence by the appellants. As such I set aside the same and remand the matter to the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta for de novo adjudication. Needless to say that effective opportunities would be given to the appellants to putforth their defence and the appellants would fully cooperate in the matter. Appeals as also the stay petitions get disposed of.
-
1999 (9) TMI 905 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Appellate jurisdiction - Precedent and practice ... ... ... ... ..... nd force in the submission of the learned JDR that a number of parties are involved in the present appeal and the evidences relied upon by the adjudicating authority for the purpose of imposition of penalty upon the appellant are interlinked with each other including the submissions of the other appellant also. Hearing of the appellant rsquo s case in the absence of the other appellants may not be justified inasmuch as it may arrive at certain finding in respect of the evidences etc. which might affect the other appellants. As such, I observe that as is the precedent and the practice is being followed in the Tribunal, the appeal should be heard along with other appeals as complicated the question of fact and interlinked evidences are the basis made by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing, I reject the appellant rsquo s prayer for early hearing. The appeal should be listed along the appeals filed by the other appellants.
........
|
