|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 73 Records
-
1961 (9) TMI 66 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he officer is to make as assessment to the best of his judgment against a person who is in defaults regards supplying information. He must not act dishonestly, or vindictively or capriciously because be must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the proper figure assessment, and for this purpose he must be able to take into consideration local knowledge and repute in regard to the assessee's circumstances, and his own knowledge of previous returns by, and assessments of, the assessee, and all other matters which he thinks will assist him in arriving at a fair and proper estimate. For these reasons, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has to be set aside. We, therefore, answer the question for decision against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Question answered accordingly.
-
1961 (9) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... we would not be justified in taking it to be the correct position and take in into account as a circumstance in deciding the question before us. What we have stated above is what we find in the factual statement as given by the Tribunal in its statement of the case, and, if the said factual position out would certainly be a relevant circumstances to be taken into consideration. Even if it is assumed that the factual position relating to double taxation may not have been accurately stated by the Tribunal and, therefore, the said circumstance should be omitted from consideration, in view of the other reasons, which we have already set out, we must hold that the amount of Rs. 3,22,869 was not the income of the assessee which was liable to tax in the assessment year 1952-53. In our opinion, therefore, the answer to the question referred to us by the Tribunal must be in the negative. The assessee will be entitled to its costs from the department. Question answered in the negative.
-
1961 (9) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a case where a person has made a return either under section 22(1) or section 22(2). The learned judges of the Mysore High Court held that the imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(b) cannot be justified except in a case where the assessee has furnished a return. This decision, though not directly in point in so far as section 28(1)(c) is concerned, still lends considerable support for the view that I have taken that section 28(1)(c) can operate only when there has been a return and when there has been no return at all. It should necessarily follow from the above discussion that in the case of assessment for the assessment year 1947-48, no return at all having been filed, it was not a case to which section 28(1)(c) applied. Accordingly, the case is not taken out of the operation of section 34(3) of the Act and the assessment made the period of four years is invalid. The review petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 63 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the fact that no return has been submitted. In our opinion, even in a case where a return has been submitted, if the Income-tax Officer erroneously fails to tax a part of assessable income, it is a case where the said part of the income has escaped assessment. The appellant s attempt to put a very narrow and artificial limitation on the meaning of the word escape in section 12(1)(b) cannot therefore succeed. The language employed in rule 34(1) appears to us to be much wider than the language employed in section 14 of the Business Profits Tax Act. Hence the ratio of the decision in the above cited case must apply with greater force to the facts of the present case. In view of our above conclusions, we hold that the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is wrong and the same cannot be sustained. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order of assessment set aside. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alance amount after allowing for all the items herein stated will be paid to you or collected from you after shipment is completed . The terms of the contract indicate that the property in the goods passed to Rallis the moment they were delivered at their godown but that the price was payable in two instalments, the first instalment of 95 per cent. on delivery and the second instalment of 5 per cent. after the completion of the shipment. The terms of this contract are almost identical with the terms of the contract between the petitioner and Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons. We agree with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the sales in favour of Rallis should be considered as local sales. In the result, we allow the revisions in part and hold that the petitioner will be entitled to relief in respect of the sales in favour of Gordon Woodroffe and Co. In other respects the revision petitions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Messrs Gordon Woodroffe undertook to do certain things on behalf of the sellers, in relation to the goods sold. But the learned Judges were not called upon to consider whether this agency relationship extended to selling of the goods on behalf of the dealer. Whatever conclusions might have been come to in the original side appeal with regard to the agency relationship set up, that decision can have no bearing upon the question whether Messrs Gordon Woodroffe did act as the agents of the sellers in effecting a sale of the goods. On the terms of the contracts that have been placed before us, we have reached the conclusion that the two exporting houses in the present case were not agents of the petitioner in that sense, and it could not therefore be held that the sales were export sales. The decision in O.S.A. No. 22 of 1955 cannot affect the conclusion which we have reached on the facts before us. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 60 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aggregate amount for which all goods are sold or supplied irrespective of the fact whether any of such goods are imported or manufactured or otherwise obtained by the dealer concerned, or whether or not they are exempted from payment of the tax. For all these reasons and having due regard to the subject-matter of the enactment, its object and the words of section 13(1), we are of opinion that the word turnover used in that section means only the turnover in respect of sales of goods specified in Schedule III. 8.. In the view we have taken, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Officer, Jabalpur, dated 2nd December, 1960, is quashed and he is directed to consider the petitioner s application dated 18th November, 1960, in the light of the observations which we have made in this order. The respondents shall bear their own costs and pay those of the petitioner to whom the security amount shall also be refunded. Counsel s fee Rs. 50. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 59 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , and the review petition was admitted after notice to Government Pleader on 31st May. 1961 . The point sought to be made out on those averments is that the review petition was filed in time. But the snag here is that Sri Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has conceded that the petition for substitution of the record and for condonation of the delay in presentation were ordered without notice to the learned Government Pleader on the representation that the delay was in re-presentation of the papers. Re-presentation presupposes the presentation of the same petition which was re-presented. However, we do not now propose to go into the question of the propriety or otherwise of that order passed without notice to the other party. Assuming that the petition was filed in time, still the petition for review is not maintainable on the grounds urged therein. Hence this will not help the petitioner. In the result the petition is dismissed with costs. petition dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... operty in the goods with the assessee to Rallis within the State. We must point out that everything depends upon the terms of a particular contract of sale, and the Court can infer whether it is an export sale or a sale in the course of export only from those terms. If on ultimate analysis of the terms of the contract it were to be found that the sale was between a foreign buyer and a local seller which is really a sale which occasions an export or a sale in respect of which the property in the goods passes only beyond the customs barrier, which means that the sale is in the course of export transaction, it will be clearly beyond the State taxing power. We hold that the sale of the petitioner to Gordon Woodroffe and Co. of the value of Rs. 74,284-0-9 is a sale in the course of export and not assessable to sales tax. The revision petition is therefore partly allowed. As the parties have succeeded and failed in part, there will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icer, there has been a failure to file a return, the dealer shall be liable to penalty. The matter is not left to the subjective discretion of the Sales Tax Officer. Learned counsel for the State has urged nothing before me in reply to the submissions made by Mr. Pathak. He has only argued, that because there was an alternative remedy, available to the petitioner, in this matter, I should not interfere with the penalty order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The existence of an alternative remedy is merely one of the factors, which has to be taken into consideration in granting or refusing relief. I think that in this particular case, the error committed by the Sales Tax Officer is so obvious and unjustified, that it would not be right to refuse relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. I, therefore, allow this writ petition. A writ of certiorari shall issue quashing the penalty order, dated 25th July, 1959. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of the firm. It is not disputed that this Paramasiva Konar had an independent business of his own. While the rest of the amounts which were received in the name of either this assessee or in the name of the firm affords prima facie evidence that those amounts related to the business of the firm itself, in the case of this sum of Rs. 25,108 there is no evidence to establish that that can be regarded as part of the turnover of the firm. The circumstance that Paramasiva Konar had an independent business must, in the absence of any other material, be taken to indicate that that amount related to that business of Paramasiva Konar. It follows therefore that this sum has to be excluded from the assessable turnover. We accordingly direct the revision of the assessment in the light of the above observations. Since, in respect of the major part of the amount in dispute, the assessee has failed, he will pay the costs of the department. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition partly allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion for his argument by a comparison of the language of this particular entry with the language used in some other entries in the relevant list. He was, however, not able to show to me how a comparison with the language of the other entries in that list helps him to establish his point regarding the meaning of the particular entry in this case. Accordingly, I must overrule learned counsel s submission, and hold that woollen carpet yarn is included in the entry woollen goods and knitting wool . It follows that it was properly chargeable at six pies per rupee and not at three pies, and no amount is therefore refundable to the petitioner. Certain other points were mentioned in the grounds in the writ petition but in the view that I took of the true meaning of the relevant entry, learned counsel did not consider it necessary to address me on those other points. For the reasons stated above this writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m the dealer who was the last dealer...Who buys them in the State on the amount for which they were bought by him. Under that rule, as it stood, though the levy of the tax was on the occasion when the goods were exported, the actual transaction that was taxed in the hands of the dealer was his previous purchase. The present rule which governs the transaction in question dropped the distinction between raw hides and skins sold to a tanner and those exported outside the State and fixed the stage of levy as the dealer who is the last purchaser on the amount for which they are bought by him. If the foreign buyer is not the last purchaser before the export, it is only the petitioners who could be regarded as the last purchaser in the State and the levy of the tax on the amount for which the goods were bought by them is fully covered by rule 16(1). In the result, the contention fail and the petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 50 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fficer for which no specific period of limitation has been provided for. In this view we are of the opinion that the appellant s plea that the revision is barred by time cannot be accepted. This reasoning of the Tribunal does not commend itself to us. The view that the revising authority has a general power of revision unqualified by any period of limitation as embodied under section 12(1)(i) and a qualified power of revision as embodied in section 12(4) of the Act is patently erroneous and proceeds upon a gross misconstruction of the statute. The provisions of section 12 of the Act, occurring in the various sub-sections and clauses, have to be read together. We wish to make this observation in this judgment, though we are affirming the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal, lest the Tribunal should repeat this error in cases that may arise before them in future. In the result the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... even where the dealer s failure be not explainable as being beyond his control and without negligence, would be justified in condoning the delay. That would be opposed to the rule well-settled that the case should be decided on the record as it stands. unless the Appellate Tribunal finds the record not sufficient to decide the appeal or there be fresh evidence available to justify review by the ordinary tribunal. The appellate authority in the case does not say that it finds the record inadequate, and there is no procedural error by the Taxing Officer, which taints the assessment. Obviously the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in not allowing the appeal, and we are afraid in these circumstances the Tribunal s order is not correct. The Tribunal has erred in allowing the forms to be received, and we accordingly allow the revision, petition, vacate the order of the Tribunal, and the appeal before it stands dismissed with costs, Advocate s fee Rs. 50. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... generally held that an issue under the equal protection clause must be decided in respect of the general classification rather than by the chance incidence of the tax upon particular taxpayers (Calgate v. Harvey(1)). A classification that is in general reasonable does not become invalid as applied to a particular case, merely because it might effect an unreasonable result therein. It is now well settled that even discriminatory legislation can be upheld as constitutional if the discrimination is founded upon a reasonable distinction or classification or if any state of facts can be reasonably conceived to sustain it. The impugned provision is not discriminatory in its terms and even if it were so, the fixing of taxing points and taxable events at the discretion of the Legislature amounts to a reasonable classification, not falling within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at by the application of the explanation. But it is further qualified by the expression and included in the net turnover. It is not pretended that the value of this notional quantity is or can at all be included in the net turnover. It is obviously only the actual purchase value of the groundnut that is included in the net turnover. The upper limit of the deduction is therefore the turnover relating to the groundnut and kernel used in the manufacture which turnover is actually included in the net turnover. This proviso, to our minds, carries into effect the intention underlying the grant of the deduction, viz., to avoid double taxation. If the contention of the learned counsel that the notional value of the turnover is alone to be adopted, the proviso ceases to have any meaning and cannot, as far as we can see, be given effect to. It follows that the contention of the petitioner fails. The revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oner forthwith. On apology and undertaking having thus been given, I desisted from the course, which alone it seemed to me, could adequately meet the gravity of the situation. I cannot part with this case without the sad reflection that officers charged with the duty of administering the law, should so far forget their duty as to throw the law to the winds, and to act according to their own whim and pleasure. The least which is expected of public servants is to obey the rule of law, and not to break the law. I am informed that in consequence of my order dated 29th August, 1961, a receipt has already been issued to the petitioner. A writ of mandamus shall now issue requiring the respondent to return forthwith all the books, which still remain with him, to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of this petition. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar of the Court to the Commissioner, Sales Tax, under the seal of the Court. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al. In each of these cases, the transformation of the original form of the material is intended for a particular use, and the resultant product is, in that form which facilitates the use of that product for the particular purpose. It is not the case of the department that the tobacco could not be used as chewing tobacco unless it was cut and packed in the above manner. One might well say that if a sugar merchant measures quantities of sugar and puts them into one-pound and two-pound packets, a process of manufacture would be involved. We are unable to accept the argument, which would lead to such an unreal conclusion. We are accordingly of the view that on the accepted facts of this case, no process of manufacture was involved which would attract the taxability of the product under section 5(vii) of the Act. The petitions are allowed with costs, counsel s fee of Rs. 100 one set in T.C. Nos. 161 and 170 of 1959, and another in T.C. Nos. 171 and 172 of 1959. Petitions allowed.
-
1961 (9) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t from the judgment of this Court in Kadiyala Chandrayya v. State of Andhra 1957 8 S.T.C. 33. and Gorantla Butchaiah Chowdary v. State of Andhra 1958 9 S.T.C. 105. We are not persuaded that the imposition of a higher rate of tax on coconuts constitutes an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution. The tax of three naye paise could be imposed only till 1st October, 1958. Thereafter, all declared goods were liable to be taxed at two naye paise by reason of the prohibition contained in section 15 of the Central Act. It is in conformity with that provision that the proviso added to Schedule IV enacted that the tax in that behalf would be two naye paise. Hence, the provision in question is free from challenge. For these reasons, we hold that the department acted within its power when it levied three naye paise in the rupee on coconuts. This contention also is repelled. a In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
|
