|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 38 of 38 Records
-
1959 (7) TMI 46
... ...
... ... ..... of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, including a transfer of property in goods made in course of the execution of a contract . Here, the Board of Revenue found from the assessee s account books that the transactions in question amounted merely to financing the buyers and sellers on an agreement to charge commission and interest and that none of those dealings were entered into by the assessee himself. On these facts the transactions were rightly held not to amount to sales, by a dealer within the meaning of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act. 6.. In view of the above, the answer to the first question is that from the transaction in dispute and evidence on record the assessee was merely a financing commission agent and was not a dealer in respect of the charcoal sales, and the answer to the second question is in the negative. 7.. Costs shall be paid by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hearing fee Rs. 50. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1959 (7) TMI 45
... ...
... ... ..... textiles and cotton yarn, but if the activity pursued by the assessees of selling cotton waste has a reasonable relation to the normal activity pursued by them, it must be regarded as an allied business activity. The normal business being manufacture of yarn and cloth, a subsidiary product resulted. This product was normally sold. In the circumstances, an intention to carry on business of selling the subsidiary product as a part or an incident of the business of the assessees may readily be inferred and the transaction of sale may be regarded as an activity in the course of the business of the assessees. If that be the true position, the assessees must be regarded as dealers in cotton as well as in cotton waste. By selling cotton regularly, the assessees may also be regarded as dealers in cotton. On that view of the case, the answer to the question will be in the affirmative. Assessees to pay the costs of the State of Bombay in one set. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1959 (7) TMI 44
... ...
... ... ..... Prohibition Act in the Second Schedule but has provided that the definition shall be read with the proviso enacted by the Legislature under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It must, therefore, be held that in ascertaining whether a particular substance is foreign liquor, regard must be had not only to the definition of foreign liquor in clause (17) of section 2 but also to the Notification issued under the proviso thereto. We may, however, observe that we are not in this case concerned with the question whether the medicinal preparations in respect of which sales tax has been levied are foreign liquor within the meaning of entry 4 of Schedule 2. We will modify the question by substituting for the words containing alcohol the words containing self-generated alcohol prepared by a process of fermentation . The answer to the question reframed will be in the affirmative. Assessees to pay the costs of the State. Costs quantified at Rs. 250. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1959 (7) TMI 43
... ...
... ... ..... tence. It follows, therefore, that the amount specified as due from a defaulter by way of fine, licence fees, etc., in an order passed against him under section 19 of the General Sales Tax Act, is outside the scope of section 64 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be illegal to provide for a term of imprisonment in default of payment of such an amount. The imprisonment provided for in the present case could be sustained only in respect of the amount specified as a sentence of fine. 3.. The result is that this petition is allowed and the warrant issued for the arrest of the petitioner for his default in the payment of the amount specified as due from him by way of tax and licence fees in the order passed against him under section 19 of the General Sales Tax Act is recalled and cancelled. He can be proceeded against only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subject to the limitations already explained. Petition allowed.
-
1959 (7) TMI 42
... ...
... ... ..... 33., the Supreme Court held that in respect of inter-State transactions only the State where the goods are delivered and consumed would be competent to levy sales tax. This judgment has brought certain categories of inter-State transactions within the taxing powers of State Governments, and the Government of Madras have decided to levy sales tax on such transactions with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1953, the date on which the Supreme Court delivered its judgment and to forego the levy prior to that date.............. It is clear from the passage extracted above that it relates solely to cases of sales tax in respect of transactions after the date of the Constitution. In these circumstances it must be held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. In follows that the original petitions must be dismissed. O.Ps. Nos. 766 and 767 of 1958 are therefore dismissed with costs including counsel s fee of Rs. 100 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1959 (7) TMI 41
... ...
... ... ..... n does include dressed poultry. When the Legislature has sought to exclude from liability to pay sales tax practically all materials which are normally used as food-stuffs or condiments for seasoning foodstuffs, we must require very strong indication to the contrary to fortify us in holding that poultry, which is a recognised food, is not included in the expression meat . Fish is exempt from payment of sales tax similarly fresh eggs are exempt from payment of tax and if the expression meat in its wider connotation includes dressed poultry, we see no reason, looking to the context in which the word is used, for holding that it is not used in its wider connotation in entry No. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. On that view of the case, the answer to the question submitted will be in the affirmative. The assessees will be entitled to their costs from the Collector of Sales Tax. Costs will be quantified at Rs. 250. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1959 (7) TMI 40
... ...
... ... ..... ation of the tea mixture there is any alteration in the goods. Undoubtedly by mixing up the different varieties of tea purchased by the assessees there resulted a mixture in which the individuality of the components was obscured, but that in our judgmentis not alteration within the meaning of the Act. The alteration contemplated by the legis- lature is some alteration in the nature or character of the goods. In the present case, in our view, their is neither processing not alteration in any manner of the goods purchased by the assessees. On that view of the case, the question No. 1 will be answered as follows The assessees are entitled to a deduction from their turnover of sales under clause (a) of section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, of the amount of Rs. 1,17,052-6-0. On that view of the case, the second question need not be answered. Assessees will be entitled to their costs from the State of Bombay. No order on the notice of motion. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1959 (7) TMI 39
... ...
... ... ..... We are unable to agree with the view of the Tribunal that the circumstance that it was on the 1st of November, 1952, the notification was issued by the Government excluding combs other than combs intended for being worn in the hair made any difference in the interpretation of the two entries and the notification. On the view taken by us the following question submitted by the Tribunal, Whether upon a proper construction of entries 30 and 33 in Schedule II to the Bombay Sales Tax (No. 2) Ordinance, 1952, read with notification No. 8 in Schedule IV of the said Ordinance of 1952, the applicants were rightly assessed to special tax for the periods from 1st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1953, and 1st April, 1953, to 31st March, 1954, on their sales of combs made of plastic will be answered in the negative. The State to pay the costs of the assessees in both the references. Costs quantified at Rs. 250. One set of costs in these two references. References answered in the negative.
-
1959 (7) TMI 38
... ...
... ... ..... he silver utilised in the manufacture of the articles. Evidently, these were sales, and admitted sales, wherein the consideration was partly in cash and partly valuable consideration in the form of silver. There is nothing in the facts of that case or in the decision of the learned judge which can lend any support to the argument of Mr. Banaji. In the case before us, it is clear from the facts which we have recapitulated that the entire modus operandi of the opponents was that they charged only for work and labour done. There was no dealing of any kind of a sale in gold nor was there anything which could bring it within the definition of sale in section 2(13) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. In the result, the first question will be answered in the negative. The second question is consequential upon the first question. That also will be answered in the negative. Petitioner to pay the costs. There will be no order on the notice of motion. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1959 (7) TMI 37
... ...
... ... ..... e application did not set out all the material facts, the Sales Tax Authority had no power to make a best judgment assessment under section 11(5). It is further urged that if at all power to assess could be exercised under section 11A which was inserted by Bombay Act I of 1949. Mr. H. D. Banaji for the Department has stated that having regard to the small amount in dispute, we may not answer questions (2) and (3) which have been referred to us in this reference. On the submission made by counsel, we therefore proceed not to answer questions (2) and (3) in Sales Tax Reference No. 21 of 1958. The first question will be answered in the negative. As to questions (2) and (3) there will be no answer. In Sales Tax Reference No. 18 of 1958, the assessee will pay the costs of the State. Costs quantified at Rs. 250. There will be no order as to costs in Sales Tax Reference No. 21 of 1958. Fees deposited by the assessee in this reference to be refunded. References answered accordingly.
-
1959 (7) TMI 36
... ...
... ... ..... Municipality of Dhendhuka12 Bom. 490., Muhammad v. Madras Corporation 25 Mad. 118. and Lalbhai v. Municipal Commissioner of Bombay33 Bom. 334. To sum up in the words of Harper (supra) at pages 668 and 669, if administrative officers exercising what are frequently called quasi judicial powers act bona fide and honestly within the general range of their duties they are not liable for an error in judgment or for a mistake innocently made. But if they act maliciously or for a purpose not intended to be advanced by the policy of the privilege of their office, they are liable. They would be liable to an individual for the misperformance thereof. Bearing these principles in mind if we examine the facts of this case the conclusion of the learned Subordinate judge that the Government are not in any way responsible and are, therefore, not liable is irreproachable. This second appeal has got to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed and in the circumstances with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1959 (7) TMI 35
Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... e other hand, Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, has referred to a case reported as Bachharaj Factories Ltd. v. Hirjee Mills Ltd. 1955 25 Comp. Cas. 227 , but, with great respect to the learned counsel, it must be said that in that case the appeal was filed by a person who was very much a party to the proceeding inasmuch as it was at his instance that the winding up proceeding had been started. In my judgment, therefore, that case is of little help to us so far as the present case is concerned. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the appeal is incompetent on the ground that the appellant was not a party to the proceeding. Apart, therefore, from other points taken by the learned Advocate-General, it must be held that the appellant had no right to come up in appeal. In view of our decision on this first question, the other questions need not be tackled. The appeal, therefore, fails and it must be dismissed with costs. Deka, J. mdash I agree.
-
1959 (7) TMI 28
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1959 (7) TMI 27
Forming incorporated company – Mode of, General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles, Certificate of incorporation – Conclusiveness of
-
1959 (7) TMI 25
Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... cise jurisdiction in respect of matters enumerated therein. It is evident from the definition of District Court that it should be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The Madras City Civil Court cannot be said to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Under section 3A of the Madras City Civil Courts Act, 1892, the jurisdiction of that court is limited. At the present moment, that court is empowered to try civil suits of the value of Rs. 50,000 and below. Being a court of limited jurisdiction it cannot be held to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. In the City of Madras the principal civil court of original jurisdiction would be the Original Side of the High Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Madras City Civil Court would have no jurisdiction by virtue of the Notification of the Central Government dated 29th May, 1951, and that the matters covered by section 10(2) of the Act should be dealt with only by this court.
-
1959 (7) TMI 23
Shares of Shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire
-
1959 (7) TMI 2
Natural justice - Inspection of samples of goods ... ... ... ... ..... by the 1st respondent was invalid and bad in law must be set aside. 20.Apart from this question, it was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the personal penalty imposed upon them by the 1st respondent of Rs. 5,700 was in excess of jurisdiction in view of the interpretation placed by this Court in several decisions on Sec. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. Mr. Chagla stated that in view of the recent Appeal Court judgment on Sec. 167(8) laying down that the maximum penalty that the Customs Authorities can impose by way of personal penalty is Rs. 1,000, he would not be in a position to argue contrary to the decision. In view of that judgment, obviously the order of personal penalty was in excess of jurisdiction to the extent that it was over Rs. 1,000. In the view that I have taken regarding the invalidity of the order, the question of personal penalty is of secondary importance. For the reasons aforesaid the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.
-
1959 (7) TMI 1
Import - Ball Bearing ... ... ... ... ..... ception vitiates the order. If the import is covered by the licence granted to the respondent no question of bona fide can arise. 4.In the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Madras, there is no trace of the contention put forward by the learned Advocate General before us that the imported goods did not fall under Serial No. 65(5)(iii) of Part V because the goods were not component parts as defined in Section 72(3) of the Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff. The order is only based on the ground that the goods were specifically covered by the sub-serial No. 19(l)(viii) of Part II, which was only introduced for the first time in the Policy Book relating to the licensing period July-December 1956. As we have already said, that basis cannot be supported in law. As the order of confiscation and the levy of fine proceeded on an erroneous view, they cannot be upheld. Balakrishna Ayyar, J. was therefore right in allowing the application. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
|
