|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 45 Records
-
1956 (3) TMI 36
... ...
... ... ..... hedule of royalty rates that so far as Singi stones are concerned, there are two rates -- one general and the other local. In view of what we have said, the State as well as the Contractor can only charge the local rate as royalty, and cannot charge the general rate which is double the local rate on the ground that Singi stone is going to be sent outside Nimbahera Tahsil or outside Rajasthan. As for the Chesa and Khanda stones, there is only one rate namely general, and there is no local rate, and so that one rate stands. It has been urged that the Contractor would be hit by our decision. If so, that is a matter for adjustment between the contractor and the State, and the amount of contract money might have to be reduced. 13. We, therefore, allow the application, and prohibit the State as well as the contractor from charging royalty on Singi stones at anything more than the local rate mentioned in the schedule to the contract. The applicant will get his costs from the State.
-
1956 (3) TMI 35
... ...
... ... ..... ks and other material in the possession of the authorities, these facts can be said to be within the "especial" knowledge of the appellant after such a lapse of time however much it may once have been there. It would, we feel, be wrong to allow these proceedings to continue any longer. The appellant has been put upon his trial, the prosecution has had full and ample opportunity to prove its case and it can certainly not complain of want of time to search for and prepare its material. No conviction could validly rest on the material so far produced and it would savour of harassment to allow the continuance of such a trial without the slightest indication that there is additional evidence available which could not have been discovered and produced with the exercise of diligence at the earlier stages. We set aside the order of the Judicial Commissioner and restore the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant on both counts of the charge framed against him.
-
1956 (3) TMI 34
... ...
... ... ..... ice to the dealer and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary and as the period of three years provided in that section had expired it was held by the court that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make any assessment under section 21 of the Act. Section 7 of the United Provinces Sales Tax Act deals with the determination of the turnover and assessment of tax in normal circumstances and the court took care to point out that the question whether he has a right to proceed with that assessment now under section 7 of the Act does not arise for determination in the instant case . 7.. What I am concerned with in this case is a normal assessment following a provisional assessment on 8th December, 1949, and a return filed on 18th December, 1951, and no question of limitation under rule 33(1) can possibly arise for consideration. 8.. It follows that the petition has to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with costs, advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 33
... ...
... ... ..... distributing retail consignee, and as such the circumstance that he does not describe himself as an agent does not change the real character of the transactions and his part in such transactions. The remuneration which he was paid is not a percentage of the price but the actual expenses incurred and interest on the amount and the fact that interest is provided for is a further circumstance in support of the view that whatever amounts were advanced were by way of loans or advances for the purpose of accommodating and facilitating to put through the transactions, which amounts were reimbursed by payments together with interest. Taking every circumstance into consideration and especially the terms of the circular orders under which the plaintiff has been acting, there is no question of treating him as a dealer within the meaning of the definition in the Act. The result is, the appeal is allowed and the decree of the trial Court is restored with costs. No leave. Appeal allowed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 32
... ...
... ... ..... ent order which had already become final as early as on 22nd December, 1952, and some of the amounts also had been realised from the petitioner. In view of the great delay in presenting this application against an order which has long been final, we do not feel called upon to interfere with the assessments. In my judgment in Civil Rule No. 132 of 1952 dated 30th January, 1956. I pointed out that where the assessment has been completed and in some cases even the amount had been realised, this Court would not be inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution because that would mean reopening proceedings which were past and closed and in which the assessees had submitted to the order and taken no further steps to safeguard their rights. The application is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances we make no order for costs. RAM LABHAYA, J.-Without expressing any opinion on the merits I agree to the order passed by my Lord the Chief Justice. Application dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 31
... ...
... ... ..... of the bill of lading, the buyer is advised of the drawing of the bill of exchange does not suspend the passing of the property. 8.. When the seller deals with the bill of lading only to secure the contract price and not with the intention of entirely withdrawing the goods from the contract, as e.g., by depositing it with bankers who have discounted the bill of exchange, then the property vests in the buyer, upon the payment or tender by him of the contract price. The facts of the instant case already set out show that all the principles establishing the transfer of property are present in the case and that none of the principles showing reservation of the right of disposal is present in this case. In the result the decree and judgment of the lower court have got to be set aside and they are hereby set aside. The issues are found in favour of the defendant and the suit is dismissed and this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs throughout. Appeal allowed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 30
... ...
... ... ..... vour of the assessee. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Bihar has frankly conceded that in view of those decisions the two questions referred to above have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the State. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to examine any more the validity of the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee. On these decisions it is manifest that the definition of sale as given above is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature to the extent it contravenes Article 286 of the Constitution and the assessee could not legally be taxed in the present case for sales of goods delivered outside the State of Bihar after the 26th January, 1950. Both the questions referred to this Court for answer have to be and are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the State. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. BANERJI, J.-I agree. Reference answered in favour of assessee.
-
1956 (3) TMI 29
... ...
... ... ..... anding any judgment, decree or order of any court, no law of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods where such sale or purchase took place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during the period between the 1st day of April, 1951, and the 6th day of September, 1955 (and the transaction in suit falls within this period) shall be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid... The clause further validates the collection and levy of all such taxes retrospectively. Therefore, the very foundation of the plaintiff s claim is now wiped out. The position under the Ordinance is that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant in the suit was liable to sales tax and sales tax has been collected and paid into the treasury by the defendant. 9.. In the circumstances, therefore, I allow the application for revision and dismiss the plaintiff s suit with costs throughout. Counsel s fee Rs. 50. Application allowed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 28
... ...
... ... ..... 6 included in his turnover as the price of 1059 bags of bran not entered in his regular books of account but traced by the department to a secret book or memorandum kept by him. The explanation of the assessee that the bulk of the goods had been kept in his godowns for and on account of other dealers and sold by them has not been accepted by the assessing and appellate authorities. The fact that the other dealers sold bran as shown by their books does not mean that the 1059 bags traced to the godown of the assessee were the goods of those dealers. The Tribunal referred to the fact that Butchiraju, one of the purchasers, was the brother-in-law of the assessee, as indicating that the assessee bought and sold the goods without entering the transactions in his books. No question of law arises with reference to this item and the assessee s objection has therefore to be rejected. T.R.C. No. 51 of 1955 is there- fore dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 27
... ...
... ... ..... but an extra 1-9/16 as russum which did not form part of the commission. In other words, the petitioners earned not only a profit of 2 under the head of commission but another 1-9/16 under the head of russum by selling the goods which they had purchased. it is unnecessary and indeed it is not possible, to say, as the majority of the Appellate Tribunal did, that this russum of 1-9/16 was slipped in in the invoices sent by the petitioners. There is no room for hold- ing that the russum was clandestinely inserted in the patties. The purchasers were businessmen who presumably scrutinised every item of charge before payment and the payments of russum were made by the purchasers with knowledge and approval. Be it as it may, the petitioners are liable to tax as dealers on their sales turnover and they are not protected by the exemption under section 8 of the Act. For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 26
... ...
... ... ..... there may at times be hides and skins bought in the preceding month with the intention of exporting but for some reason or other not exported in that month. The dealer, in such cases, would not be taxable in respect of the quantity not exported but would be liable for tax on the purchase price in the succeeding month when the goods are sold for export. If the dealer after making the return showing the amount for which he purchased untanned hides and skins for the purpose of export, changes his mind at the last moment and does not export them but sells them within the State, it will be open to him to claim an adjustment of the tax already paid on the purchase price. This is provided by rule 15(5) of the rules. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that Tax Revision Cases Nos. 25, 41 and 44 of 1955 should be allowed and Tax Revision Cases Nos. 26 of 1956 and 45 of 1955 should be dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each of the revision cases. Ordered accordingly.
-
1956 (3) TMI 25
... ...
... ... ..... ples laid down in that case can have any real appli- cation to the question we have got to consider in the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent also referred us to the observations of Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. The State of Bihar ( 1955 6 S.T.C. 446), where the learned Judge considered the scope of section 39(1) of the Sale of Goods Act of 1930. We are not really concerned with any fictional sale here. There was nothing fictional when delivery was made to the agent of the buyer at the seller s premises within the State of Madras. The claim of the Government that the turnover in question, Rs. 53,341-14-0, is liable to tax, and that the seller has to pay it, has to be allowed. The petition is allowed with costs. The order of the Tribunal in so far as it held that the turnover in question was exempted from taxa- tion is set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to the costs of this application. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 24
... ...
... ... ..... he case upto the stage at which the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the respondent-assessee on 20th March, 1954, on a turnover of Rs. 44,617-15-0, which according to the departmental authority has escaped assessment in 1950-51, has been set out in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that that assessment was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by rule 17(1) as it stood during the relevant period, and set aside the assess- ment. The Government seeks to have that order revised under section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act. For the reasons given in T.R.C. No. 54 of 1955, in which we have just pronounced judgment, we negatived the contention of the Government, that as there has been no valid assessment at all at any time before 20th March, 1954, the case would not come within the scope of rule 17(1). Rule 17(1) applied, and the assessment was beyond the time prescribed by that rule. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petitions dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 23
... ...
... ... ..... e entered into three kinds of transactions, (i) where he charged an inclusive rate for both the gunny coverings and also the pressing process, (ii) where the gunny cloth and the hoops were supplied by the customers and rebate was granted by the assessee, and (iii) where the price of the goods and the cost of labour involved were separately, shown. It is obvious that whatever method was adopted, the assessee charged for the gunny cloth and the hoops and it is impossible to conceive that a business man like the assessee would not have included in the charges the large amounts he spent for purchasing the gunny cloth and iron hoops. We, therefore, following the judgment in Krishna and Co., Ltd., Guntur v. State of Andhra (1956 7 S.T.C. 26 1955 A.L.T. 841.) hold that the transactions in question were sales within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, were liable to sales tax. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50. Petition dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 22
... ...
... ... ..... imposes a multiple tax at every point of sale and payment of tax at one sale point does not debar a levy of tax on another sale of the goods. Under section 8-C of the Act, the State Government is entitled, in respect of any sale of goods effected by it, to collect by way of tax any amount which a registered dealer effecting such sale would have been entitled to collect by way of tax under the Act. The Government was therefore entitled to collect the tax from the assessee and the latter when he sold the bamboos would have realised from the buyers the tax that he had paid to the Government by including it in the cost price. When the assessee sold the bamboos to others, he was bound to pay sales tax to the Government for in the case of goods with which we are concerned, tax is levied at the point of sale and is payable by the seller who might collect it from his purchasers. For these reasons, the revision case is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50. Petition dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 21
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner is entitled to the exemption under the notification issued by the Government dated 18th November, 1954. The notification reads In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) as subsequently amended, the Governor of Andhra hereby exempts from the tax payable under sec- tion 3, sub-section (1), of the Act, the sales of handloom cotton nawar tape by persons who deal exclusively in such handloom cotton nawar tape. This notification is dated 18th November, 1954, and the notifica- tion in terms does not make its operation retrospective. We cannot, therefore, give any retroactivity to this notification which came into force on 18th November, 1954, i.e., subsequent to the assessment year in question. This notification, therefore, cannot help the petitioner. In the result, we agree with the judgment of the Sales Tax Appel- late Tribunal and dismiss the petition with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50. Petition dismissed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 20
... ...
... ... ..... e Gazette dated 17th January, 1950, though the notification bringing it into force with effect from 30th May, 1950, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 1(c) of the Act was issued and published only after the Consti- tution came into force? Following the practice adopted by the Court of Appeal in Hedger v. Shutler(4) I direct that the O.P. be posted before me on 19th March, 1956. Order dated 19th March, 1956. Mr. Namboodiripad is ill. Post this petition for hearing to Monday the 26th March, 1956. Order dated 26th March, 1956. The petitioner proposes to file a fresh petition raising all his objections and giving full details. In view of this the petition is not (1) 1954 5 S.T.C. 216 A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 1130. (2) 1955 6 S.T.C. 211 A.I.R. 1955 Mys. 41. (3) 1955 6 S.T.C. 93. (4) 139 E.G. 386-See also A.I.R. 1949 P.C. 112 1955 Ch. 260 and 1955 L.Q.R. 455. pressed and is hereby dismissed with freedom reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition as proposed. No costs.
-
1956 (3) TMI 19
... ...
... ... ..... casion to consider it. What rule 5(1)(g)(ii) requires is that the charges for packing should be billed separately from the price of the goods sold. As we pointed out, that test the assessee satisfied in this case. Rule 5(1)(g)(ii) does not enable the Department to split up the charges for packing further between charges for the labour involved in packing and charges for the cost of packing materials, whether on the basis of estimate or otherwise. If the dealer shows only an inclusive charge for packing, and that charge includes both labour and cost of packing materials the claim for exemption can still be sustained on the basis of rule 5(1)(g)(ii). The Tribunal, in our opinion, was right when it pointed out There can be no service on account of packing without the use of packing materials and the attempt of the Commercial Tax Officer to separate the materials from the charges is not warranted. These petitions fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed. (1) 1956 7 S.T.C. 26.
-
1956 (3) TMI 18
... ...
... ... ..... asonable or just relation to the object of the Act, which is to tax the turnover of the sales of a dealer. The apparent discrimination, which results in one class of such dealers being singled out for levy of tax at a higher rate, has not been explained by any classification with a reasonable basis, having a just and reasonable relation to the object of the Act. We are of opinion that the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, void and unenforceable against the first petitioner. Since the assessment of the first petitioner was on the basis of a taxing provision, which, in our opinion, is invalid, the assessment will have to be set aside by the issue of a writ of certiorari. He could have been taxed under section 3(1)(b) of this Act, but not under the proviso to section 3(1)(b). The petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute. The peti- tioners will be entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1956 (3) TMI 17
... ...
... ... ..... y time under section 10(4), but it is nobody s case that the Syndicate had discovered this mistake before the expiry of the time fixed in this sub-section. Section 12 deals with refunds and it does not lay down any period of limitation for making an application for refund of tax and I am of the opinion that the taxation authorities should have refunded the amount of Rs. 4,030-14-3 illegally levied and collected from the Syndicate. Our Constitution prohibits levy and collection of a tax except by authority of law (Article 265) and the order of the Financial Commissioner dated the 25th April, 1955, disregards this provision of the Constitution. I therefore accept this petition and direct by a writ of mandamus that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner should refund the amount of Rs. 4,030-14-3 to the Sugar Syndicate, Bahadargarh. As this amount had been realised from the customers by the Syndicate, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this petition. Petition accepted.
|
