|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 104 Records
-
1967 (7) TMI 137
... ...
... ... ..... nts in dispute namely, that they require the suit premises for occupation for the purposes of the trust. It was agreed before us by both the sides that the findings on those points may not be disturbed. The following order is therefore, passed. (17) The decrees of the trial Court and the appellate Court are set aside and the suit is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction that it should frame a proper issue regard being had to the language of Scion 113 (2) of the Rent Act, 1947. The trial Court is directed to record evidence, if any, offered by the parties to this suit in relation to the above issue and to record a finding thereon, and thereafter to dispose of the suit in accordance with law on the basis of the finding on the above issue, as well as on the findings already recorded on the other issues. It is made clear that the findings on the issues already framed by the trial Court are not to be re-opened. There will be no order as to costs. (18) Order accordingly
-
1967 (7) TMI 136
... ...
... ... ..... to this company are an application for stay of winding up and an application for the appointment of provisional liquidator and an application for injunction. All the four applications were heard from time to time because of the inconvenience of counsel to have the hearing concluded. The final hearing w
-
1967 (7) TMI 135
... ...
... ... ..... ial Superintendent was not an officer who was authorised to entertain such claim. In these circumstances, the lower appellate Court was amply justified in presuming, as it did that the notice under Section 77 was validly served upon a competent officer of the railway administration The second point raised by Mr Bose, accordingly, fails. 13. Mr. Bose also contended that under no circumstances, the plaintiff could have been entitled to a refund of the entire difference between parcel rate and goods rate, because at least up to Itarsi, the consignment was carried in a parcel train, and up to that point, therefore, the plaintiff was liable to pay parcel freight. I do not propose to express a concluded opinion on this point because, as I have already held, the suit must fail in its entirety on the ground of limitation. 14. In the result, the decision of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout. B.N. Jha, J. 15. I agree.
-
1967 (7) TMI 134
Validity of execution - time limitation - the execution was barred because the execution was sought beyond a period of three years of the making of the award - Held that:- This case has no connection whatsoever with cases such as those where procedural orders are made by the Debt Court in a proceeding under this Act, but under the provision of the Civil Procedure Code, and which are held to be applicable, because its proceedings are governed by the Civil Procedure Code. In such cases, it is possible to say that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 43, providing for appeals against certain orders made under the Act, an appeal may also lie under the Civil Procedure Code.
Application dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 133
... ...
... ... ..... the Appellate Assistant Commissioner expressed a doubt whether the sum of ₹ 27,755.58 related to different transactions. The Tribunal has expressed no opinion on it. o p /o p 8. In the circumstances the only relief that we can give in this tax revision case is this. The order of assessment is set aside only to the extent of a turnover of ₹ 27,755.58. The assessing officer, after giving a fresh opportunity to the assessee, will check up with the assessing authority at Perintalmanna whether C Forms were produced before him covering the turnover of ₹ 27,755.58, whether they were in order and whether the transactions which made up this turnover of ₹ 27,755.58 were included in the turnover of ₹ 80,615. If he comes to an affirmative conclusion on these matters and in favour of the assessee, he would of course have to tax the turnover of ₹ 27,755.58 or any part of it at the concessional rate. There will be an order accordingly. No costs. o p /o p
-
1967 (7) TMI 132
... ...
... ... ..... fore direct that the suit shall be posted tot trial and disposal within two month from today, i.e. on the 4th of September 1967. Within two weeks from today, the defendants should file the written statements and within three weeks thereafter, there should be mutual discovery and inspection. The case will be posted for final hearing and disposal on the 4tb of September, 1967. The documents which were all seized by the Commissioner and produced in Court in Application No. 1217 of 1967 shall be returned back to the defendants 3 and 4 Secretaries of Defendant Chamber except the voters' list. The first defendant Chamber shall pay a sum of ₹ 250/- as additional remuneration to the Commissioner. The interim injunction is vacated and the applications are dismissed. There shall be no costs. 33. In this proceeding, I have not accepted the arguments and contentions of Sri V.P. Raman; even so, I wish to ex press my appreciation of the able and lucid arguments presented by him.
-
1967 (7) TMI 131
... ...
... ... ..... no merit in these contentions. The respondent is being charged tax now. He is entitled not to be taxed except under the authority of law, vide Art. 265 of the Constitution. There is no question of challenging any pre-Constitution matter. The respondent is challenging a post-Constitution action on the ground that there is no authority of law for the action. 12. Regarding the second point, the High Court held that an appeal to the District Magistrate under s. 128 was not likely to be of much assistance to the petitioner and rejected the contention. It is well-settled that a provision like s. 128 does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition under Art. 226 and it is for the High Court to exercise its discretion whether to entertain the petition or not. The learned counsel has not pointed out anything to us to show that the discretion has not been properly exercised. 13. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 14. Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 130
... ...
... ... ..... id gift. It cannot divest the donor of his proprietary lights or clothe the donee with any title, unless a registered instrument is passed and the mere fact of the gift of property having been made directly or constructively and been accepted by the donee at the time of the nuptials cannot pass an absolute title. The provision of the statute is mandatory and imperative." 29. I am therefore of opinion that section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to a case of transfer of immovable property made at the time of marriage by a Hindu. Every such gift in order to be valid must be in writing and ought to be registered. In spite of this finding. I have, however, come to the conclusion that Exhibit B-1 fulfils all the requirements of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and it can therefore be validly set up as a defence under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 30. For the aforesaid reasons. I dismiss the appeal with costs throughout. No leave.
-
1967 (7) TMI 128
Whether the officer to whom the flat would be allotted would occupy it as a tenant or as a licensee?
Held that:- The High Court rightly held that the respondents reasonably require the flats for respondent No. 2’s own occupation through officers holding the flats on its behalf as licensee. If so, it is conceded that it is not necessary for the respondents to establish the reasonable requirement by respondent No. 1 also for its own Occupation. The High Court decided this issue also in favour of the respondents. As the decision on this issue is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal, we express no opinion on it. The High Court rightly decreed the suits. Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 127
... ...
... ... ..... or purchase, but as an incentive for prompt payment of the aggregate of price at the time of settlement. This does not impress us. The only relation between the parties to the transaction was that of vendor and purchaser and the discount allowed could not but be in relation to the sales. It makes no difference whether it was allowed in a lump sum or proportionately to each of the sales or purchases. In substance the character of the discount is the same. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 126
... ...
... ... ..... tioner was clearly a defaulter when he had not paid the tax demanded. Even assuming that the realisation was stayed, he would still remain a defaulter. The stay order does not operate to wipe out a liability. Its effect is only to suspend the realisation of the amount for some time. In the present case the complaint of the learned counsel that the subordinate authorities of the department have ignored the orders of the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax is not correct. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax had only suspended the realisation of the tax pending the appeal. The last order passed by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax is not one of stay. Therefore, even if the effect of the earlier orders was to stay the realisation of tax, those orders stand superseded by the last order passed by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax. We find, therefore, no substance in the last submission of the learned counsel also. For the reasons mentioned above the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 125
... ...
... ... ..... ales tax collected separately by a dealer from purchasers is a part of the sale price. The Nagpur High Court also took the same view in Jethalal Virajlal v. State of M.P. 1953 4 S.T.C. 125. In that case it was held that the amount recovered by a dealer from his purchasers in respect of sales tax must, under the definition of sale price in section 2(h) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, be regarded as part thereof and has to be taken into account while arriving at a dealer s taxable turnover. It must be noted that section 2(h) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, defined sale price in the same terms as section 2(o) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, does. 8.. For these reasons, the questions referred to us for decision in both the references are answered in the affirmative. In each case, the assessee shall pay to the Commissioner of Sales Tax the costs of the reference. Counsel s fee in each case is fixed at Rs. 100. References answered in the affirmative.
-
1967 (7) TMI 124
... ...
... ... ..... revised by the appropriate authority suitably after the present assessment proceedings are finalised. It is not clear to me what is meant by the statement about suitable revision . It is a vague statement, and the petitioner feels apprehension about his relief. It will be much better for the assessing authorities to give credit to the amounts collected from the assessee under the assessment made under the Madras General Sales Tax Act when making a demand for the assessment at the higher rate levied under the Central Sales Tax Act so that the assessee is not compelled to pay over any part of the sum twice. But if he had already paid any and twice over the simplest way is to give credit to what has already been paid twice over and collect only the balance and make the necessary adjustment between the amounts due to be collected under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Madras General Sales Tax Act under the appropriate heads of account. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 123
... ...
... ... ..... itions. The Deputy Commissioner did discuss in his appeal the sustainability of the claim for a refund made by the petitioner and negatived it. So, his order was one relating to assessment and became an appealable order under section 22(1). If the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal when it hears the appeals discovers that the applications for refund are still pending before the Commercial Tax Officer, and that they have not yet been disposed of, what it should do is to set aside the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in each of the appeals and to direct the Commercial Tax Officer to consider those applications if they are still pending and dispose of them according to law. The Tribunal will now proceed to rehear the appeals as directed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs in these two revision petitions, those costs being restricted to the court-fee paid on the revision petitions. We make no direction for payment of Advocate s fee. Petitions allowed and cases remanded.
-
1967 (7) TMI 122
... ...
... ... ..... at means, inter-State sales of braided cords, though they come within the purview of section 8(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in view of the exemption obtaining in respect of local sales of similar goods, no tax will be exigible on inter-State sales. Our attention is invited to an exemption made by the State Government under section 8(5) of the Central Act, which relates to textiles but confined to all varieties of cloth, except cloth made of pure silk or staple Since reported in 1968 21 S.T.C. 451.fibre. It is not because of any exemption under the Central Act, interState sales of braided cord are not chargeable to tax under section 8(2)(a) of the Central Act. This is because section 8(2)(a) of the Central Act applies to inter-State sales of declared goods, the rate applicable to sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State and no rate is prescribed in local taxation in view of the exemption. The tax case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 121
... ...
... ... ..... to tax escaped assessment in the original authority even in case of orders revised by the appellate authority. Under the new Act, the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer in this matter under the old provisions is not continued. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the Assessment Commercial Tax Officer has no jurisdiction as an original authority to make the order which he did. Subsequent to the order, Madras Act 10 of 1963 came into force with retrospective effect. We do not think that this Act will affect the position. In fact, the Amending Act directs that any right acquired or liability incurred and any legal proceedings instituted or continued or enforced in respect of it shall be viewed as if the Amending Act had not been passed. On that basis too, the Assessment Commercial Tax Officer will have no jurisdiction to pass the order. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 120
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee was under a misapprehension that even after the amendment with effect from 1st October, 1958, he could use the electrical goods in execution of contracts. If it were a case of assessment, he would certainly be governed by the amended section 8(3)(b). That was what was held by the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1965 16 S.T.C. 310. He could not in that case take cover under the C Forms which were current prior to 1st October, 1958. But a case of penalty stands on a different footing as the relevant provision itself provides. It is only where the use for another purpose is without reasonable excuse, the penalty will be justified. Where reasonable excuse is shown, no penalty could be levied. In a similar case that was the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Viswanathan and Co. v. State of Madras 1965 16 S.T.C. 125. With respect, we share that view This petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 119
... ...
... ... ..... essed sales came out of those involved in the suppressed purchases especially when the appellant has done a large volume of business both purchases and sales. We should remark that it cannot be asserted with certainty either that the suppressed sales were not made out of the goods purchased by suppressed purchases to any extent. Any estimate of turnover should be reasonable and must be based on some material. When purchases have been made and they have not been shown in the accounts and sales have been made which do not find a place in the accounts, it may be reasonable to assume that the goods covered by such sales to the extent possible came from the goods purchased but not disclosed. In our opinion, it is only any excess sales not covered by the purchases that can be added. The petitions are allowed in those terms. No costs. The appeals will be restored to the file of the Tribunal so that it may re-estimate the turnovers in accordance with our judgment. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 118
... ...
... ... ..... o such presumption, and that in each case the question whether the business is the separate business of the son or the joint family business, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. The Commercial Tax Officer had no evidence before him that the business, which at some point of time Padmanabha Shenoy carried on, was family business in which the petitioner had also an interest. The reasoning employed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal is similar to that employed by the Commercial Tax Officer, and so invites the same criticism which the Commercial Tax Officer s reasoning invites. We therefore allow these three revision petitions and set aside the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer and the orders made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner will get his costs in these three revision petitions. Advocate s fee Rs. 100, one set. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 117
... ...
... ... ..... on the assessee made it clear that he wanted a certificate in respect of the goods for use in the manufacture, tea-chests, for packing purposes, machinery, drugs, etc., for running the estate and manufacturing tea. According to him, he thought that etc. would cover all those articles which may be required for running the estate and manufacturing tea. It is not necessary for us to decide whether etc would actually cover all those articles. It will suffice to say that the assessee could possibly have formed the belief and quite honestly that etc. would cover those articles. Section 10(b) is a penal provision and where a question arises whether an offence has been committed or not, the dealer who is accused of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This is not a case where it can be said that the dealer with the full knowledge of the falsity of the representation made the declaration in the C Form issued by him. The petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
