|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 54 of 54 Records
-
1964 (7) TMI 20
... ...
... ... ..... , and no warrants for his arrest should have been issued. I may point out that mere difficulty in realising the arrears from the company can scarcely by itself constitute a lawful ground for the impugned action indeed no law has been shown by the respondents in support of it. It is well for those wielding power of the State to remember that they are also under an obligation to keep themselves within the bounds of law and to cultivate the spirit of the rule of law. This attitude of mind on their part is more necessary than ever in a set-up like ours, for if they transgress the law, then the whole society suffers. On the arguments addressed at the Bar, this petition cannot but succeed and allowing the same we direct that the warrants for the petitioner s arrest for the realisation of the sales tax due from the New Age Publication Limited be cancelled and the petitioner be not arrested for the realisation of such taxes. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 19
... ...
... ... ..... rned in offences, accumulate and whose sales are advertised and held. The properties which accumulate in the possession of the Customs Department usually consist of a random collection of goods spotted at the Customs barrier, and detained, and subsequently not delivered to the importer for one reason or other. The Customs Department cannot be considered as being engaged in business as defined in the Act when sales of such goods after their confiscation are held. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a profit motive is not an essential feature of the transaction, and that there is some kind of regularity in the sales effected by the Customs Department, still in the absence of anything to indicate the essential requirement of an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture or adventure or concern in the nature of trade, we are unable to see how the decision of the lower Tribunal can be held to be incorrect. This revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 18
... ...
... ... ..... ped turnover fixed by the lower Appellate Tribunal, we note that out of Rs. one lakh, Rs. 75,000 has been allotted to rice and Rs. 25,000 has been allotted to other commodities. The assessing authority has estimated the value of suppressions of vanaspati at about Rs. 11,000. It appears to be redundant to include the estimate of suppression of vanaspati which will come under commodities other than rice twice over as has been done in this case. The proper procedure will be to make the assessment of suppressions once and for all. From this point of view, it appears to us to be necessary to make a reduction corresponding to the addition already made by the assessing officer for vanaspati suppression. Hence we restrict the addition made on account of escaped turnover to Rs. 75,000 for rice and Rs. 14,000 (Rs. 25,000 minus Rs. 11,000) for other commodities, i.e., Rs. 89,000 in all. The revision is dismissed in other respects. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 17
... ...
... ... ..... ral Sales Tax Act in respect of the assessment years in question and all it claims is that the authorities in the Punjab State have no jurisdiction to make an assessment and levy and collect such tax. This is simply a matter of procedure and it seems to me that as from the 1st October, 1958, the Punjab State Authorities could not levy or collect tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the sales effected in the course of inter-State trade where the movement of goods had commenced from the State of Maharashtra. I would, therefore, hold that in the present cases the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner has no legal authority to levy or collect tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the result, I would allow these appeals and quash the notices issued by the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the 18th August, 1962, but considering all the circumstances leave the parties to bear their own costs. PANDIT, J.-I agree. Appeals allowed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 16
... ...
... ... ..... when the assessee approaches the assessing authority and proves the conditions stated in the proviso, what he seeks in essence is a modification of the original assessment order and he can be considered as seeking a review of the original order itself so as to enable him to get a refund of the tax imposed. From this point of view, the enforcement of the proviso cannot be disassociated from the assessment itself, but must be treated as a continuation or further step taken in the assessment proceeding itself, in pursuance of the proviso to the charging section. We therefore hold that the procedure for obtaining a refund is also one under section 12 of the 1959 Act, and is subject to appeal under section 31. The same reasoning will apply to the proceedings taken under the old 1939 Act also, and which form the subject-matter of two of the revision cases before us. The three revision cases therefore fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 15
Whether a certain payment in annas, pice or pies discharges an ascertained liability?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the present case by the notification issued on March 31, 1956, the liability for payment of sales tax was to be computed at the rate of one anna in a rupee of the turnover. By virtue of section 14(3) of the Indian Coinage Act, for an anna mentioned in the notification 6 1/4 new coins will be substituted but as the substituted rate involved a fraction by the process of rounding off at the rate specified in sub section (2). The fraction of new coins will be omitted and the nearest new coins, i.e., six new coins will be deemed to be substituted in the statute. Liability for sales tax after the amendment of the Coinage Act will, therefore, be at the rate of 6 new coins for every rupee of sale price.
-
1964 (7) TMI 8
Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 25(3) in respect of the interest on securities ?
Held that:- The schemes of section 25(3) and section 26(2), proviso, are different. The first grants an exemption because there has been a double levy of tax, and an intention to exempt all income, profits and gains of business from taxation may be attributed to the legislature. Section 26(2) fastens liability of the predecessor, if he cannot be found, upon the successor and must be strictly construed. The legislature has imposed by section 26(2) liability upon the successor to be assessed for profits earned in business carried on by his predecessor, and unless there is a clear intention expressed in the statute to include in that expression what in reality is not income, but is deemed income, the liability to assessment would justifiably be limited to profits of the business which is computable under section 10. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 7
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... I would have certainly quashed the impugned order. But, as I have already stated, the over-doing of the Deputy Superintendent did not really prejudice the petitioners. The Collector of Central Excise gave to the petitioners the requisite opportunity of showing cause and decided the case in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He came to an independent finding that the Central Excise duty evaded by the petitioners amounted to Rs. 49,760.78 nP. He did not pattern his judgment on what the Deputy Superintendent did, although according to him also the amount of Central Excise duty evaded did come up to the figure as in the demand notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent, since the thoughtless performance of the Deputy-Superintendent did not ultimately prejudice the petitioners I do not make much of the grievance. For the reasons hereinbefore stated, I am disinclined to interfere with the order. This Rule is discharged. I do not, however, make any order as to costs.
-
1964 (7) TMI 6
... ...
... ... ..... ds in respect of which the tax has been levied and the drugs in respect of which the duty is not levied stand on the same footing. There is neither pleading nor proof of this fact. The distinction between drugs which are recognised by the pharmacopoeias and the mixtures or compounds which are not so recognised is founded on intelligible differentia. It is not shown that the differentia has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved either by the Drugs Act, 1940 or by the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The second contention of Mr. Banerjee must therefore be rejected. 4.No other contentions were advanced before us. 5.Numerous other objections were raised and argued before Banerjee J. But his findings on these points have not been challenged before us. 6.There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs. Certified for two counsel. 7.An oral application for leave under Article 132 of the Constitution is prayed for and is refused.
-
1964 (7) TMI 5
Prosecution - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... signor in the foreign country was a person other than the present accused, the fact that this accused had made a declaration regarding two unaccompanied baggages and the baggages consigned to him had arrived in the port of Calcutta, would be sufficient to establish that the accused had brought the contraband articles in India in contravention of Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. I am unable to accept this argument of Mr. Ghose because although the evidence shows that the articles were brought into India on his accounts as consignee, the evidence does not at all establish that the articles had been brought into India by the accused either directly or indirectly. I therefore hold that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate has been the correct order in the case although his reason for making that order of acquittal was not exactly correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 4
Cotton fabrics produced on powerlooms by a cooperative society - Interpretation of taxing statute - No room for intendment
-
1964 (7) TMI 3
Whether the expression of opinion by the Central Board of Revenue was information within the meaning of section 59(b) of the Act?
Held that:- We affirm the finding of our learned brother that a mere expression of opinion by the Central Board of Revenue does not amount to information within the meaning of section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (7) TMI 2
Assessee is right in contending that section 297(2)(c) of the 1961 Act does not provide for appeal to the Supreme Court - petitioner is entitled to urge that his application under s. 66A(2) of IT Act, 1922 is protected by s. 6 of the General Clauses Act
-
1964 (7) TMI 1
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 34 and make reassessments - whether the reassessments made by the Income-tax Officer are valid - reason to believe
|
