|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 81 Records
-
1960 (11) TMI 99
... ...
... ... ..... l be issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment orders mentioned in paragraph 4 of the petition dated 20th October, 1954, and 19th November, 1954, as also the certificate mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition and all proceedings had by reason thereof, including the order of the Certificate Officer dated 28th June, 1955, and the orders of the Additional Collector in Appeals Nos. 93 and 94 of 1955 mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition, and the orders in revision of the Commissioner, Presidency Division, mentioned in paragraph 10 of the petition are quashed and/or set aside. The respondents are restrained by a writ in the nature of mandamus from giving effect to the same. There will be no order as to costs. I make it clear however that this order will not prevent the respondents from making a proper assessment of sales tax for the relevant period, should it transpire that any goods sold by auction belonged to the auctioneers themselves. Writ issued.
-
1960 (11) TMI 98
... ...
... ... ..... meaning of the words or phrases. The need for this enlargement in the instant case gives us a clue to the author s intention, namely, that he used the word cloth in its narrower sense, and with a view to enlarge its denotation he was impelled to have recourse to the usual method of including . The learned counsel for the assessee suggested that he did so because embroidery work in a handloom pagri would have been otherwise outside the pale of handloom cloth. We are unable to accept the suggestion for the simple reason that pagri has been included both with and without challa. In our opinion, therefore, item 3 of the Notification of 14th April, 1955, when it exempted handloom cloth, it did so in its narrower meaning and Durry was not intended to be included in this exemption. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. As there was a legitimate dispute relating to interpretation, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1960 (11) TMI 97
... ...
... ... ..... 5. We already pointed out that it is conceded by Sri Ranganathachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is the first seller after the import of the goods into the State of Andhra and that he is not exempt from taxation under section 3(3) of the Act.. It therefore follows that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax as assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer which was substantially confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. The order of remand passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for an enquiry into the question whether the outside dealer is exempt from taxation under section 3(3) is therefore unnecessary. We set aside the order of remand passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 617 of 1957 on its file and confirm the order of assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. The petitioner shall pay to the respondent the costs of this T.R.C., Advocate s fee Rs. 50. Petition dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 96
... ...
... ... ..... Hyderabad State, storing them in the warehouse at Valerpad and himself transporting the commodity as his own goods. On the facts as established, namely, that the whole sale was completed within the State of Hyderabad, it is difficult to believe that there would have been any stipulation as alleged in the affidavit. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, Mohanlal Hargovind v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 6 S.T.C. 687 1956 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 5. is of no avail. The petitioner in the cited case, a Bombay merchant, supplied finished tobacco to the petitioner in Madhya Pradesh. That was not a case of sale having been completed within the State of Bombay and delivery having taken place therein. That was obviously a case where deliveries were made in Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, that case can have no parallel to the case on hand. So, this argument also has to be repelled. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 95
... ...
... ... ..... here is no basis for the issue of the notice except the ground that it was unlikely that the assessees would have paid higher rates. We do not think that it is permissible for the assessing authority to resort to such guess for the purpose of revising the assessments already made by the department. The notices are, therefore, quashed. If there is any real basis for the issue of such notices, it is open to him to issue fresh notices. In the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the principles enunciated in Manepalli Venkatanarayana v. State of Andhra(1) have to be borne in mind. It is open to the assessing authority to have recourse to section 14(4) of the Act, provided it is within time. For the reasons, the notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner and which relate to W.P. Nos. 423, 424 and 526 of 1959 are quashed. The assessment orders in W.P. Nos. 425, 518 and 519 of 1959 are also quashed. There will be no order as to costs in these writ petitions. Ordered accordingly.
-
1960 (11) TMI 94
... ...
... ... ..... port of the expression sale occasioning the movement of goods is, as already stated, that the delivery outside the State should be under a covenant or as an incident of the contract of sale. This clause contains the same principle as that laid down in the various decisions referred to above and the concept underlying this clause does not contain a different one. Therefore, if the petitioners had failed to prove that the sales in question are invested with inter-State character, they cannot succeed in getting them within, the scope of this clause. So, section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, does not render any assistance to the petitioners. We therefore, feel that the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming that aof the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot be successfully impeached. It follows that the revision petition has to be dismissed with costs. In the special circumstances of the case, Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 500. Petition dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 93
... ...
... ... ..... which, in our opinion, are wide words and take in an order passed dismissing an appeal for default. Sub-section (4) says that after giving both parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity, the Tribunal could pass such orders as it thinks fit. We feel that there is no justification for reading a restriction into sub-section (6)(a). In our considered judgment, the powers vested in the Tribunal are comprehensive enough to include the power to review even an order passed dismissing an appeal for default. It follows that the Tribunal can review its own order dismissing the appeal for default, the only prerequisite being that certain new facts which were not available to the Tribunal at the material time are placed before it. In the result, the revision case is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition in limine is set aside. The Tribunal will restore the application to its file and consider it on merits. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 92
... ...
... ... ..... e related to a contract to paint a portrait. All that was held was that such a contract was not a contract for the sale of goods but a contract for work and labour. 15.. The contention apparently is that the rice and the bags form an integrated commodity and the exemption under section 5(vi) of the Act should hence apply not merely to the rice but to the bags as well. The exemption under section 5(vi) is only in respect of the sale of foodgrains, and we are not prepared to say that when foodgrains are packed in gunny bags, the gunny bags lose their physical or commercial identity and form a part of the foodgrains themselves. As stated in Varasuki and Co. v. Province of Madras 1951 2 S.T.C. 1., any exemption of any article must be strictly construed and confined to the exemption itself and not extended . 16.. In the light of what is stated above, these petitions have to be dismissed and we do so with costs, Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each of the two cases. Petitions dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 91
Whether sales under which goods were delivered outside the State of Bihar for the purpose of consumption but not within the State of first delivery or first destination, are exempt from the levy of sales tax by the Bihar State by virtue of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution as it stood before the recent amendment?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The power of the State to levy sales tax relying upon the territorial nexus between the taxing power of the State and the sale is impaired for reasons already set out to the extent to which it is restricted by the incorporation of Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto, in that Act. Therefore, sales effected on or after January 26, 1950, where goods are as a direct result of the sale delivered in another State for consumption in that other State, are not liable to be taxed. The order of the Superintendent of Taxes is set aside. He is directed to grant refund of tax paid in the light of this judgment. The appellant will be entitled to exemption from payment of tax if the goods are, as a direct result of the sale, delivered in another State for the purpose of consumption in that State.
-
1960 (11) TMI 82
Whether the respondents were carrying on such a business in respect of coal?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The position of the respondents was merely that of agents, arranging the sale to a disclosed purchaser, though guaranteeing payment to the colliery on behalf of their principal. In view of what we have said, no business of selling coal was disclosed in the instance cited before the Collector, and the order of the Tribunal was correct on the facts placed before it.
-
1960 (11) TMI 73
Whether in the rules or in the licence itself that is, a licensee is exempt from assessment as long as he conforms to the conditions of the licence and not that he is entitled to exemption?
Whether the conditions upon which the licence is given are fulfilled or not?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The appellants have been found to have contravened the provisions of the Act as well as the rules and therefore it cannot be said that they have observed the conditions upon which the exemption under the licence is available. In that view of the matter, it was rightly held that they were not exempt from assessment under the Act.
-
1960 (11) TMI 71
Whether the transaction in question in this case amounted to a sale within the meaning of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The stipulation that the contractors themselves will have to supply the spare parts, as and when needed, for replacements of the worn out parts is also consistent with the case of the respondent that title had passed to the contractors and that they were responsible for the upkeep of the machinery and equipments and for depreciation. If it were a mere contract of hiring, the owner of the goods would have continued to be liable for replacements of worn out parts and for depreciation. Applying those tests to the terms of the agreement between the parties, it is clear that the transaction was a sale on deferred payments with an option to re-purchase and not a mere contract of hiring, as contended on behalf of the appellant.
-
1960 (11) TMI 55
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ed to set off the amount of the decree that may be passed against the claim of the respondent company. But, I fail to see how the mere fact that a claim has been put forward against the respondent company and which is pending adjudication by the court can make the claim of the respondent company which arises out of a decree passed in favour of the respondent company after contest, a disputed debt. It is, no doubt, alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition that an appeal has been preferred against the decree and the appeal is pending but it is well settled that the mere fact that an appeal is pending does not prevent the judgment-debt from being made the foundation of a winding up petition unless stay of execution of the decree is obtained pending the disposal of the appeal. So, this point also appears to be devoid of any substance. For all these reasons, we hold that this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Certified for two counsel. Lahiri C.J.-I agree.
-
1960 (11) TMI 47
Inspection, production and evidence of documents kept by registrar ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court framed under the Judicature Act. This contention was not accepted as the source of authority under which the Rules of the Supreme Court were framed in England was entirely different. Mr. Roy extracted the proposition from this decision that granting of leave was a judicial act. Mr. Roy laid emphasis on the words leave of that court occurring in section 610(2) of the Companies Act and, in my opinion, rightly contended that such leave was to be obtained from the judge who would consider whether leave should be granted for the production of the original document. Before. I conclude I should state that in this case the subpoena that was issued was extremely vague as it required the Registrar to produce all papers, correspondence, returns and files. I, therefore, am of opinion that the subpoena dated July 20,1960, be set aside. As far as the petitioner s costs are concerned, I am of opinion that the petitioner should pay and bear its own costs. Certified for counsel.
-
1960 (11) TMI 46
Shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire
-
1960 (11) TMI 45
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1960 (11) TMI 25
Whether the amounts received by the assessee are capital or revenue receipts and for that purpose it is necessary to investigate the nature of the grants made by the appellant?
Held that:- The question which has to be decided is what was the nature of the transaction. The covenants in the licence show that the licensee had a right to enter upon the land and take away and appropriate samples of all bauxite of every kind up to 100 tons and, therefore, there was a transfer of the right the consideration for which would be a capital payment.
In our opinion, the High Court was in error and the question referred should have been decided in favour of the appellant. Allow the appeal.
-
1960 (11) TMI 24
Whether on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in applying section 8(3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?
Whether in the computation of the capital employed in the business of the assessee, the Tribunal erred in not including the value of the goodwill or any portion thereof ?
Held that:- A question of law did arise in the case whether the goodwill of the Eros Theatre and Restaurant Ltd. was calculated in accordance with law. The Tribunal seems to have taken into account only the value of the leasehold of the site to the subsidiary company, and rejected other considerations which go to make up the goodwill of a business.
It is manifest that the matter of goodwill needs to be considered in a much broader way than what the Tribunal has done. A question of law did arise in the case, and, in our opinion, the High Court should have directed the Tribunal to state a case upon it. Appeal allowed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 23
Whether the admission fees of members or authorised assistants received by the assessee is taxable income in its hands ?
Held that:- The entrance fees were payable by the trading members elected under the rules and bye-laws of the association, who alone with their associates, could transact business in stocks and shares in the association. Therefore, the body of trading members who paid the entrance fees, and the shareholders among whom the profits were distributed were not identical and thus the element of mutuality was lacking. The High Court correctly answered the question in favour of the respondent
-
1960 (11) TMI 22
Whether the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs has been properly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1951-52 ?
Held that:- The sum of ₹ 5,00,000 was not paid to the assessee in token of appreciation for the services rendered as a Dewan of Bhavnagar State but as a personal gift for the personal qualities of the assessee and as a token of personal esteem.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the High Court set aside and the reference is answered against the Commissioner of Income-tax.
|
