Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 54 of 54 Records
-
1956 (4) TMI 37
... ... ... ... ..... the State is used in rule 7 and in the definition of dealer in section 2(d). In the latter it refers to the buying, selling or supplying of goods, while in the former it refers to the person engaged therein. The relied ruling in V.O. Vakkan v. State of Madras ( 1955 6 S.T.C. 647) is not applicable in the present case. There the non-resident seller came into the State and executed the contracts of sale and therefore their Lordships of the Madras High Court held him to be a dealer. They also observed that if for executing the contracts of delivering goods a non-resident merchant comes into the State he may not be regarded as a non-resident foreigner. In the case under appeal the non-resident merchant has not visited Hyderabad State for carrying on the business under consideration. We are unable to accept the claims of the appellant that he is not the first dealer in the State in so far as the turnover of silk cloth is concerned. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1956 (4) TMI 36
... ... ... ... ..... istant Collector and rejecting the revision application made to him, dealt with the application before him suo motu, and gave the applicants a deduction in respect of the turnover. Thereafter, the applicants came to this Tribunal contending that the Collector should have allowed them a (1) 2 S.T.D. 57. deduction on a different head also. This Tribunal observed The applicants have in our opinion no locus standi. They allowed their appeals to become invalid for want of payment of the tax and their application for revision having been rightly dismissed they have really no ground to come before this Tribunal. What the Collector has done amounts to a concession and the applicants cannot be heard to complain if it does not go far enough. Following this decision, we do not think that we would be justified in going into the question whether the Col- lector in this case, acting suo motu, has not given sufficient relief. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.
-
1956 (4) TMI 35
... ... ... ... ..... State, as stated above. In the case under consideration tax has been preferred to be levied on the pur- chase turnover of a dealer as provided in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. Therefore the contention of the learned authorised representative of the appellant that section 5 (1) of the Act does not authorise such imposition of tax on purchase turnover of groundnut until the same commodity bought by the dealer is subsequently sold is, therefore, not valid, nor is it essential that there should be a series of sales to attract liability to tax under the Act. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are liable to pay tax on their purchase turnovers as already assessed. He is however not liable to remit the sum of Rs. 1,687-6-6 to the Govern- ment as ordered by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Appellate. To this extent the order under appeal is set aside. No order for the refund of the institution fee. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1956 (4) TMI 34
... ... ... ... ..... eir duties. It is for this reason that the company bears its bad debts, the remuneration charged being regarded as covering the risk of such debts. The remittances sent by the company to the appellants from time to time cannot be held as remittances of the sale proceeds, but as remittances in discharge of agent s obligation arising (1) 43 L.T. 171. under the company s agreement with the appellants. That being so, we are unable to hold that the supplies in question constituted sales by the principal, i.e., the appellants, to the agent, i.e., the company. This conclusion appears to be supported by the recent decision of the High Court in S.K.F. Ball Bearing v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City(1). 11.. We are, accordingly, unable to agree with the Collector that the supplies in question represent sales attracting the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Collector. Appeal allowed. (1) 1956 29 I.T.R. 479.
-
1956 (4) TMI 33
... ... ... ... ..... d to have peremptory effect. It is not disputed in this case that the proviso to rule 44(1) has not been followed. It follows, therefore, that there has been no valid service of notice upon the assessee within the mean- ing of rule 44 and the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were both erroneous in holding that the appeals presented by the assessee on the 7th of April, 1950, were barred by limitation under the provisions of section 24 (2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. In our opinion, the appeals were not barred in the circumstances presented in this case and it was the duty of the Commissioner to have heard the appeals on merits and disposed of them in accordance with law. For these reasons, we answer the questions of law referred by the Board of Revenue in favour of the assessee and against the State of Bihar. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference. There will be a consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 250 in all the three cases. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1956 (4) TMI 32
... ... ... ... ..... ovincial Legislature to impose the tax. It was pointed out that location of the situs of goods has a real and pertinent connection to the transaction of sale and that situs of the goods attracts constitutional authority of the Provincial Legislature to tax the sale transaction. In view of the principle laid down in this case, it is obvious that the third question of law referred by the Board of Revenue must be answered against the assessee and in favour of the State of Bihar. We hold that the amendment of section 2(g) introduced by the Bihar Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, namely, Bihar Act VI of 1949, authorising levy of sales tax on sale of goods manufactured in Bihar, wherever the sale takes place, is consti- tutionally valid. As the State of Bihar has succeeded in this reference on two out of three questions, we direct that the assessee should pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly. (1) 1956 7 S.T.C. 158 A.I.R. 1956 Pat. 92.
-
1956 (4) TMI 31
... ... ... ... ..... onsider that the decision reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Diana Engineering Company(1) has any bearing on the present case. We do not consider that any question of estoppel arises against the opposite party. In other words, the opposite party cannot be prevented from raising at this stage the question that the application made under section 25(2)(b) is incompetent because it was made not by the Commissioner of Sales Tax but by the State of Bihar in violation of the statutory provisions contained in section 25(2)(b). The argument of learned Government Advocate on this point must, therefore, fail. For these reasons, we hold that the reference made by the Board of Revenue in this case is not competent and the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the reference or to answer the question of law raised in the reference. There will be no order as to costs of the hearing of this application. Reference not answered. (1) 1953 24 I.T.R. 613 A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 575.
-
1956 (4) TMI 30
... ... ... ... ..... tant item, and the omission to use the form in a case of this nature, in our opinion, must be regarded as an irregularity which does not vitiate the claim made or disentitle the officer in question to inquire further into the matter. In any case, if the application had to be rejected on the ground that it was not made in the necessary form, an order to that effect should have been passed, and an appeal would have been open to the applicants. This was not done, and the authorities below do not appear, at any stage, to have applied their minds to the merits of the claim to refund. It appears to us necessary that the Sales Tax Officer should now apply his mind to the applications making such claims. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below so far as the question of refund is concerned, and direct that the appli- cations for refund made by the applicants shall be inquired into and decided by the Sales Tax Officer in accordance with law. Application allowed.
-
1956 (4) TMI 29
... ... ... ... ..... td.(8), Goddard, L.J., observed Where an article is taxed, whether by purchase tax, customs duty or excise duty, the tax becomes part of the price which ordinarily the buyer will have to pay. The price of an ounce of tobacco is what it is because of the rate of tax, but on a sale there is only one consideration, (1) 1955 6 S.T.C. 376. (5) 1948 1 S.T.C. 193. (2) (1948) 1 S.T.D. 23. (6) 1954 5 S.T.C. 88. (3) 1952 3 S.T.C. 230 A.I.R. 1953 Pat. 10. (7) 1944 1 All E.R. 372. (4) 1956 7 S.T.C. 105. (8) 1944 1 All E.R. 618. though made up of cost plus profit plus tax. So, if a seller offers goods for sale it is for him to quote a price which includes the tax if he desires to pass it on to the buyer if the buyer agrees to the price it is not for him to consider how it is made up, or whether the seller has included the tax or not . These decisions sufficiently show that the view taken by the authorities below is correct. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Application dismissed.
-
1956 (4) TMI 28
Form and contents of balance sheet and profit and loss account ... ... ... ... ..... the Council in coming to a contrary conclusion. I should desire to point out that should it happen in the future that the Council is unable to accept the view of the Disciplinary Committee and comes to a different conclusion, it ought, when forwarding its opinion to this court, to give its own reasons for taking a different view. For the reasons given above, we must hold that in spite of the evidence of negligence and imprudence in acting on his own responsibility in matters beyond his province and certifying the profit and loss account without obtaining any explanation from the directors which was obviously called for in view of the terms of the agreement and of the difficulty of reconciling the entries in the accounts with even his own view of the meaning of gross income, the particular charges laid against the respondent had not been established against him. No orders on the reference are, therefore, necessary and there will be no order for costs. Sarkar, J. mdash I agree.
-
1956 (4) TMI 23
Shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire
-
1956 (4) TMI 22
Charges – Registration of and Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... ered under the Registration Act and the Companies Act and, thirdly, by reserving the right of the Madras State to file a petition under section 231 of the Companies Act, subject to limitation etc., to agitate the question of fraudulent preference by the Tramway Company in favour of the debenture holders and by reserving the right of the Madras State to agitate for priority of its decree debt in C.S. No. 368 of 1953 over other unsecured creditors before the liquidator and the Judge in seisin of the liquidation proceedings. The judgment and decree of Balakrishna Aiyar J. in C.S. No. 368 of 1953 are confirmed in all other respects. In the circumstances, we direct the Madras State to pay half the costs of the Tramway Company (in liquidation) in both these appeals, but allow it to set off such costs also against the decree in its favour in O.S. No. 368 of 1953. The Tramway Company will bear the rest of the costs itself. The other parties to these appeals will bear their own costs.
-
1956 (4) TMI 21
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order and Debts of all descriptions to be admitted to proof
-
1956 (4) TMI 20
Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... ourt which had jurisdiction to give relief in respect of the proceedings which had already been commenced, and that with regard to the claim under section 372, sub-section (2), the court would make an order granting the petitioners relief from future or apprehended claims in respect of what was a purely technical defect the summary proceedings already commenced being expressly excepted from that order. Following this decision and the wording of section 281, I relieve the petitioners from any apprehended liability as I am satisfied that they could not comply with the provisions of law on account of the unavoidable circumstances due to the death of the accountant but I cannot relieve them from liability of pending prosecution. And this order shall not in any way prejudice the proceedings which are pending before the Magistrate and the Magistrate is at perfect liberty to come to his own conclusion irrespective of this order from the facts and the evidence in the case before him.
|