|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 93 Records
-
1962 (2) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns of s. 143(2) are satisfied, viz., (1) that the tax was one which was lawfully levied by a local authority for the purposes of a local area at the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act.,. (2) that the identity of the body that collects the tax, the area for whose benefit the tax is to be utilised and the purposes for which the utilisation is to take place continue to be the same and (3) the rate of the tax is not enhanced nor its incidence in any manner altered, so that it continues to be same tax. If as we have hold earlier there is a limited legislative power in the Province to enact a law with reference to the tax levy so as to continue it, the validity of the Act of 1949 which manifested the legislative intent to Continue the tax without any break, the legal continuity being established by the retrospective, operation of the provision, has to be upheld. The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with costs-one set of hearing fees. Appeals dismissed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT
Constitutional validity of the Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960 challenged - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We agree with the High Court that the impugned Act was within the legislative competence of the West Bengal State Legislature and was validly made
-
1962 (2) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... power under the relevant Act. Whether the petitioner sold the goods to the Government or to a third party, he had to obtain a licence. Indeed in the present case, the licence was given to the seller with the express object of fulfilling the contracts with the Government and was issued several days after the contracts were executed, and indeed the Government took the licence from the seller and cleared the goods through their officer. Just as in that case the fact that the licence stood in the name of Gokal and Co., did not constitute a legal impediment to the passing of property to the Government, here also the fact that the licence stood in the name of the local mills could not constitute a legal impediment to ownership vesting in the petitioners and thereafter passing to the local mills, particularly since the letter of authority permitted the petitioners to import. For these reasons the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 73 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cision, and did not realise that it is opposed to the principle laid down in Abdul Saffur Rowther v. Hamida Bivi Ammal(2). He was clearly in error in thinking that Nanchappa Koundan v. Mannadiar(3) laid down that interest would be awarded on equitable considerations, independent of Interest Act and Contract Act, and that the present case is one in which such considerations exist. I have pointed out in some detail how that is not the view of the Madras High Court in Nanchappa Koundan v. Mannadiar(3), nor is it the view of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited v. Ratanji Ramji(4) nor of the Supreme Court. His reasoning that section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code enabled interest to be awarded is equally untenable. I am, therefore, unable to uphold his decision. In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the decree of the District Munsiff is restored. In the circumstances, I direct that each party do bear its costs throughout. Leave granted. Appeal allowed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 3.. The order of assessment under attack is, therefore, set aside, the assessing authority will take up the question of making the assessment for the period in question afresh, and the petitioner will be given fair and full opportunity to place all his points of view regarding the return that he has filed. It is needless to state that when the officer proceeds to make a best judgment assessment, there is a duty on his part to make available to the petitioner every point or aspect that he proposes to take into account in making the best judgment assessment, and give the assessee opportunity to place all the objections that may be available to him both under law and on facts, regarding the proposal. After completing all these formalities, it is open to the assessing authority to make the final assessment. 14.. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is allowed, and the order of assessment under attack is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 71 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act that he was later found not to have maintained correct accounts or suppressed the turnover. The real ratio of that decision is that the assessee s failure to maintain correct accounts should not be a ground for disallowing the rebate to which he is otherwise entitled. This decision is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the present case. It may also be noted that the assessee has been adjudged an insolvent and his estate has vested in the Official Receiver. Whether in such a case, it is open to the assessee to prosecute the appeal against the assessment order, is itself open to serious doubt. Having regard to our conclusion that this revision case must fail on the merits, we do not think it is necessary to go into this question. This revision case is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. The respondent will be entitled to recover his costs from the estate of the assessee in the hands of the Official Receiver. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 70 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ree. The concession made by the State Representative that the rule was not previously published was on a mistake of fact and therefore the real fact of the existence of previous publication under section 19(4) was not brought to the notice of the Court. That fact of previous publication, which really existed, was not before this Court when it passed the order. The fact of such previous publication has been brought to our notice now only and therefore section 12-B(7) applies to the case. No other point has been argued and in the light of the new fact the application for review has to be allowed. Therefore we allow the application, review the order passed by this Court in T.R.C. No. 92 of 1959 and dismiss the tax revision case. In the special circumstances of the case, which culminated in this review application, we direct the State to pay costs to the assessee, which we fix at Rs. 100. Petition allowed. Since reported as Haji P.K. Mammoo v. State of Kerala 1961 12 S.T.C. 142.
-
1962 (2) TMI 69 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... prescribed figure does not obtain in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 9.. This, and this alone, must be the reason for saying that the inter-State dealer in cases covered by sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law . In other words the injunctions of sub-section (2) can be summarised as follows (1) Treat the inter-State transaction as an intra-State transaction (2) Tax it as it would be taxed under the State Act, that is if there is a tax under the State Act, impose, it if there is none, desist from doing so and (3) Ignore the fact-if such is the case-that the dealer concerned is not liable under the State Act for the purpose of carrying out injunction No. (2). 10.. In the light of what is stated above these tax revision cases have to be dismissed and we do so. The Department will pay the costs of the respondents. Petitions dismissed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 68 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are exempted from tax. Rather the word any preceding the word garment has the tendency of widening its amplitude. We see no reason to import any qualification either. In another assessee s case the Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeals) distinguished garment from articles made by the process of hosiery. We have already observed that the kernel of the word garment appears to lie in the use to which it is put, viz., an article of dress intended for covering human body rather than the process by which the material was manufactured out of which it has been made. This argument also. therefore, does not appeal to us. In this view of the matter this writ petition is allowed. The order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer dated 29th June, 1960, is quashed and he is further directed to refund the tax already realised from the petitioner on the sale of such articles as are garments on the view of law taken by us. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 67 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t be open for Mr. Srinivasan to contend that such an order was illegal or it cannot be supported. We respectfully agree with that view. Hence we cannot agree with Sri T. Krishna Rao, that the formula adopted for arriving at the turnover is an arbitrary or a capricious formula. The Commercial Tax Officer with his experience of hotel business is the best person to find out the feeding charges of hotel servants. It is essentially a question of fact. As in our opinion the accounts produced by the petitioner were rejected without scrutiny, under an erroneous impression that account books, vouchers and bills which do not fully comply with the requirements of the law are required to be rejected. this case will have to go back to the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision according to law as interpreted by us in the course of this judgment. It is ordered accordingly. The costs of this petition will be costs in the cause. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Ordered accordingly.
-
1962 (2) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P. 3 that the accounts of the petitioner for the year 1954-55 were called for at the direction of the revising authority to re-examine the claim for exemption duly allowed. Further, as already pointed out, such revision could be made only during a period of four years. It is true that, both under the rules framed under the old Act and under the new Act, a dealer should preserve his accounts for a period of five years. But, in the absence of any evidence to show that P.W. 1, Sri Govindaraj, had powers to summon the accounts for the purpose of the Act as contemplated under sections 41(1) and 54 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, it could not be said that the petitioner was legally bound to produce his account books. The conviction of the petitioner under section 174, Indian Penal Code, cannot, therefore, be sustained. The conviction and the sentence are, therefore, set aside and the fine amount, if collected, is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner. Conviction set aside.
-
1962 (2) TMI 65 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hereafter that this reference was made to this Court. It is clear from the fact that the assessee s pleader consented to a reference being made to this Court, that he is clearly precluded from urging any contention to the contrary in this Court. That being so, it is not necessary for us to consider the argument that the letter addressed on behalf of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 27th October, 1958, was not an application presented in accordance with law or that the application made on 27th April, 1959, was barred by limitation. In my opinion, we should answer the question referred to us, in favour of the Department. Our answer should be that purchase tax is leviable under section 10 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, where the butter purchased from an unregistered dealer is sold after converting it into ghee. The reference will be answered accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. SADASIVAYYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (2) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h to its satisfaction that the aggregate amount for which he sold the arecanuts is not turnover as defined under the Act, because it falls within the scope of the proviso. It is contended for the petitioner that the Commercial Tax Officer has already prejudged the two questions. I do not think so. The replies of the Commercial Tax Officer will have to be understood In the light of the communication sent by the petitioner to him. In these communications, the petitioner did not take up the position that the arecanuts sold by him underwent only husking and no other treatment. In the circumstances, as and when the petitioner flies a return for the year in question, the authorities will determine the two questions afresh, without bringing to bear upon them any preconceived or prejudiced notions, but In the light of the facts found by the department on the materials produced by the petitioner. The rule nisi is discharged and the petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (2) TMI 63 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld be free from liability if he chose to give away everything which came from his factory. In our opinion the power of the Provincial Legislatures to levy a tax on the sales of goods extends to sales of every kind, whether first sale or not. In this reference we must address ourselves to the question raised from the point of view of a lawyer and not from that of a political economist. Under section 21(1) of the Act the Court can only consider the legal aspect of the matter and give its opinion on the question of law formulated. All these authorities can but lead to one conclusion in law, namely, that sales tax as imposed by the Act is a tax on the sale of goods as clearly mentioned in the preamble to the Act and the charging section and cannot be considered to be tax on the goods themselves. As the assessee s contention that the tax was a tax on the goods has not been accepted the assessee must pay the costs of this reference. RAY, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (2) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant firm can be regarded as dealer under section 18 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 (XIV of 1950) with respect to certain transactions of purchasing castor seed entered into by the Bombay Export Co. Ltd. in the former State of Hyderabad on the ground that the appellant was the agent of the company?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There is no doubt whatsoever that the appellant firm was not merely a financier of the company but also its agent during the years in question. It, therefore, falls squarely within the ambit of section 18 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act and the Sales Tax Authorities were justified in making the assessments against it.
-
1962 (2) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the export sales which are the subject-matter of dispute in this appeal were completed within the Province of Madras?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The price in respect of the goods was not received in the Province of Madras, and the property in the goods also did not pass to the buyer within the Province. Tax in respect of the sale of fibre by the assessees under the disputed transactions was therefore not exigible under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
-
1962 (2) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Whether an act is done or intended to be done under a certain law might well be whether the person who committed it can, if challenged, reasonably justify his act under any provision contained in that law?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. High Court was in error in rejecting the reference. When the appellants submitted their returns they did so under section 10 of the Act and when they produced their accounts they did so under section 15 of the Act. Therefore both the making of the returns and production of the accounts were done under the Act and cannot be said to be outside the provisions of the Act.
-
1962 (2) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 5564 Ft., dated 30th March, 1949, issued under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, with regard to the sales of the preparations of meat and fish, e.g., meat curry and fish curry served as separate dishes, or as part of the menu, at lunch or dinner, at the petitioner's premises or outside?
Held that:- We do not, however, wish to express our opinion in this case with regard to the question whether the expressions "meat" and "fish" in the notification of the State Government dated the 30th March, 1949, under section 6, includes boiled meat or boiled fish and not merely raw meat and raw fish. The petitioner has already obtained a decision in his favour from the Board on this point and it is not necessary for us to express an opinion as to whether the decision of the Board of Revenue is correct or otherwise.
For the reasons we have already stated we consider that the question as reframed by us should be answered against the assessee and in favour of the State of Bihar in the manner we have already indicated.
-
1962 (2) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Oppression and mismanagement, Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.
-
1962 (2) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Power of court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... es 10 and 11 of Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the High Court by virtue of the provisions of rule 3 of Order XLIX of that Code, the only alternative that is left to me is to dismiss the suit. I cannot also accept Mr. Gupte s contention that I should treat this suit as a petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. There is a fundamental objection to my doing it and that is, as I have already observed above, that the petition would be entertained by the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under the Companies Act, whereas the suit would be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The two jurisdictions being entirely different and inasmuch as, while dealing with this suit, I am not exercising any jurisdiction conferred on this High Court by the Companies Act, I am afraid I cannot treat the present suit as a petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the result, the suit is dismissed.
|
