|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 38 of 38 Records
-
1965 (1) TMI 65
... ...
... ... ..... ng to recover a sum of money due to it from one of the partners of a firm. The Government cannot attach or sell an item of movable or immovable property of the partnership to recover the dues from one partner on the footing that that item of property constitutes the share of the debtor-partner. The Government as the creditor of a partner, cannot claim a larger right or interest in the partnership property than the debtor-partner himself is entitled to claim. The remedy of the respondents in the circumstances of this case is to proceed against the property of the Nagpur firm which is the assessee or to proceed against the separate properties of the partners of that firm including D.V. Shah and recover the tax amount. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed. As I am not satisfied that D.V. Shah has not inspired this writ petition and that he is not trying unfairly to evade or delay payment of the tax, I do not award costs in this writ petition. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 64
... ...
... ... ..... sed by the predecessor-in-office and the order passed by him on 15th March, 1960, was not made without jurisdiction and is not void or invalid on that ground. But the order made by Mr. Ghosh on 15th March, 1960, was made in violation of section 20(5) of the Act and for that reason the order must be quashed. For the reasons mentioned above this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of Banerjee, J., dated 14th January, 1963, are set aside. Let a writ issue in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15th March, 1960. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus also issue directing the respondents not to give any further effect to the said order of 15th March, 1960. The respondents are directed to act according to law. Each party to pay its own costs. This order is made without prejudice to any further steps or proceedings which the respondents may be advised to take pursuant to the suo motu proceedings initiated by the respondents. BOSE, C.J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 63
... ...
... ... ..... s therefore wholly unfounded. In our judgment, the trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused on the ground that they committed no criminal offence by non-payment of the tax which can be recovered from them by due process of law. As already noticed, on a true interpretation of rule 14-A, there is little doubt that sub-rule (7) for purposes of rule 16, which makes the breach punishable in law, cannot be attracted unless the breach complained of is in relation to a tax due from the month the rule 14-A came into force or subsequent thereto. Evidently, the assessment in question relates to the period even prior to the year 1958 and hence is clearly out of the scope of rule 14-A for purposes of rule 16. It is therefore not an offence and consequently the prosecution for the same was not competent. We accordingly uphold the order of acquittal passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, Gudivada. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 62
... ...
... ... ..... was that of the Governor, either by the Governor or by the President (b) where the recommendation required was that of the Rajpramukh, either by the Rajpramukh or by the President (c) where the recommendation or previous sanction required was that of the President, by the President. In the instant case, the assent of the Governor to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Second Amendment) Act, 1955, was published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, on 19th September, 1955. That cures the type of defect contended for by Mr. Acharya. A similar view was expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in Gauri Shanker v. Municipal Board, JhunjhunuA.I.R. 1958 Raj. 192 at p. 194., dealing with the previous Presidential sanction of the Bill, under Article 204 of the Constitution, and I respectfully agree with the view. For the reasons given, the only argument made in support of this Rule fails and I discharge the Rule with costs, hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. Rule discharged.
-
1965 (1) TMI 61
... ...
... ... ..... If, in this situation, the assessee, who is not a confectioner, continued to vend his existing stock of those products and did not manufacture a fresh stock of the products, his explanation ought in reason to have been accepted, particularly when there is nothing to show either in the account books or otherwise that, after 9th March, 1960, he did not duly account for every bag of sugar received by him. In our opinion, the rejection of the assessee s account books as unreliable is arbitrary and unjustified by any material on record. We are further of opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the estimate of Rs. 80,750 grounded on the supposed utilisation of 500 bags for manufacture of these products after 9th March, 1960, is based on suspicion and surmises. 6.. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us in the manner indicated in the foregoing paragraphs and direct that the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1965 (1) TMI 60
... ...
... ... ..... erely because he purchased the stock which was in hand with the Mart on the date of its sale to him. 9.. For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that the ownership of the Rajasthan Paper Mart s business was not transferred to the petitioner when he purchased on 9th April, 1960, for Rs. 6,100 the stock of stationery paper, pencils, fountain-pens etc. the Mart had on that day. That being so, the petitioner cannot be asked under section 33 of the Act to pay the tax and penalty which the Mart was liable to pay. The result is that this petition is allowed and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax holding the petitioner liable under section 33 of the Act for payment of the tax and penalty, which the Rajasthan Paper Mart was liable to pay, are quashed. The petitioner shall have costs of this application. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 59
... ...
... ... ..... ontroversy on its merits and not allow its independent judgment to be unduly influenced by any directions which may be contained in the letter mentioned above. I do not think any such specific direction is called for on the facts and circumstances of this case, for I have not the least doubt that the appellate authority would decide the matter strictly in accordance with the law as laid down by the decisions mentioned above and in the light of the observations made in the present order. It goes without saying that if the said letter contains any instructions contrary to the law as discussed in the present order, the appellate authority would not allow its judicial approach to be influenced by them. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed but with no costs. It is agreed that the connected petition stands or falls with it, with the result that Civil Writ No. 621 of 1964 is also dismissed but without costs. CAPOOR, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 58
... ...
... ... ..... part and the entirety of the evidence consisting of the account books and other records was not scrutinised. I have already pointed out that in so far as the Board was concerned, though it appears to have called for a report from the subordinate officers, it did not examine the matter by itself. At any rate, it gave no notice to the petitioners or gave the petitioners an opportunity of showing how the petitioners came within the scope of the government order. It seems to me to be clearly a case where the assessing authorities who are bound to obey the lawful directions issued by the government in the shape of a government order have failed to perform their duty. It follows that the orders of the Board necessarily have to be quashed. There will be a direction that the matter be considered afresh by the appropriate assessing authority in the light of the evidence placed before him by the petitioners. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petitioner allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 57
Whether the parties in the instant case, having regard to the circumstances of the case, intended to sell or buy the packing materials?
Whether the subject-matter of the contracts of sale was only the cigarettes and that the packing materials did not form part of the bargain at all, but were used by the seller as a convenient and cheap vehicle of transport?
Whether, when a trader in cigarettes sold cigarettes priced at a particular figure for a specified number and handed them over to a customer in a cheap card- board container of insignificant value, he intended to sell the cardboard container and the customer intended to buy the same?
Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand. The High Court may consider afresh the question whether the packing materials were the subject-matter of the agreements to sell, having regard to the relevant material and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. If in its opinion the necessary material is not on record it can get a finding from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in that regard.
-
1965 (1) TMI 49
Whether the transaction referred to in bill dated 29th June, 1955, is liable to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Reading the contract as a whole, we are in agreement with the High Court of Bombay that it is a contract for the sale of goods and not a contract for work and labour. It will be noticed that the bodies are spoken as composite bodies or as units throughout the contract and property in the bodies passes to the Government on delivery, and when the property passes the bodies are goods. The fact that a progress report had to be given only ensured prompt delivery. There is no clause in the agreement which militates against the contract being a contract for the sale of goods.
-
1965 (1) TMI 44
Whether a contract is one for execution of work or for performance of service, or is a contract for sale of goods?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The finding that the contract as a whole is a contract for the sale of goods. Agreeing with the High Court, we hold that the answer to the question referred is against the appellant. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. In the other two appeals relating to assessments for the quarters ending September 30, 1957, and December 31, 1957, the agreements are similar and these also fail and are dismissed with costs. There will be one set of hearing fee in all the three appeals.
-
1965 (1) TMI 41
Unable to read the stay order as implying that the respondent was obliged to deposit tax, for the stay order then would be of no utility to the assessee. Apart from that, the respondent did not file returns till December, 1959, and January-March, 1960, and section 7(2) could not be attracted till then.
We are not concerned with the question whether there has been any breach of section 16(1)(c), In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
-
1965 (1) TMI 26
General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles
-
1965 (1) TMI 17
Whether the conduct of the affairs of a company by the majority shareholders was oppressive to the minority shareholders?
Held that:- The case of the appellant based on the agreement of July 27, 1954, therefore must fail and it must be held that even if that agreement was not carried out by the company, which was not bound by it, there can be no case of oppression of the appellant.
The slight delay in the payment of the full value of the shares cannot therefore in the circumstances be said to be so prejudicial to the interests of the company as to call for any action under section 398 of the Act. It has not been shown that view of certain actions taken by the new management without consulting the appellant, the company was landed in any difficulty and loss of profit which would show mismanagement of its affairs.
The appellant asked for production of certain documents in April, 1961, and those documents were made available for inspection by the appellant and were produced in court. It was for the appellant to take inspection of those documents if he so desired and the appeal court was right in pointing out that the learned single judge was not correct in drawing an adverse inference against the company that it had disobeyed the orders of the court and had not produced the documents called for and had given no opportunity to the appellant for their inspection. It seems to us that the appeal court was right in this view and no case has been made out even prima facie for action under this part of section 398 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 16
Whether High Court of Madras was correct in directing the winding up of the, appellant, the Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Limited?
We are satisfied that the debt in respect of which notice was given under section 434 was bona fide disputed by the appellant-company. The appellant-company had received legal advice and it had acted on it. On the facts it seems to us clear that the appellant-company did not dispute the debt in order to hide its inability to pay debts. Further we are satisfied that the question whether the declaration of dividend dated December 30, 1959, is valid or not raises a substantial question as to the interpretation of Section 207 of the Companies Act. Further, whether the declaration dated December 30, 1959, is severable or not is also a substantial question. We do not propose to decide whether the declaration of dividend was valid or not or whether it was severable or not, because in these proceedings we ware only concerned with the question whether the debt was bona fide disputed by the company on substantial grounds. If the debt was bona fide disputed, as we hold it was, there cannot be "neglect to pay" within section 434(1)(a ) of the Companies Act. If there is no neglect, the deeming provision does not come into play and the ground of winding up, namely, that the company is unable to pay its debts is not substantiated. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (1) TMI 3
Demand - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... to such person and at such time and place, as the proper officer may specify. 16.If the duty was short-levied because of the statements as to the value of the goods, the case falls within Rule 10 and not within the residuary power under Rule 10A. That being so, the demand made beyond three months from the date when the duty was adjusted in the current account, as done in this case, cannot be sustained, I have dealt with this point in National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise 2000 (123) E.L.T. 19 (Cal.) 68 C.W.N. 541 and I need not repeat the reasons here. 17.For the reasons aforesaid I make this Rule absolute, quash the notice of demand and restrain the respondents from giving effect thereto. The current account of the petitioner company must be readjusted if any debits had been made in respect of the sums covered by the notices. Let Writ of Certiorari and consequential Writ of Mandamus issue accordingly. I, however make no order as to costs.
-
1965 (1) TMI 2
Gift-tax Act, 1958 - "Whether the gift made by Sri Vadrevu Venkappa Rao who is a karta of the Hindu undivided family to his wife of a part of the Hindu undivided family property is exempt under section 5(1)(viii) of the Act ?" Question answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee
-
1965 (1) TMI 1
Amount received as dividend - assessee first credited this sum to the profit and loss appropriation account and, thereafter, transferred the same to a reserve fund - Whether the sum of Rs. 43,925 received by the assessee represented business income arising under s. 10 from an adventure in the nature of trade or it was a dividend within the meaning of s. 12
|
