|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 104 Records
-
1967 (7) TMI 116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ad not been passed . The remedy so preserved for the assessee is related to the appellate powers as contemplated by the 1939 Act. We are not, in this case, called upon to decide the effect of dropping the Commercial Tax Officer and bringing into existence the post of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. What will be the consequence of it on the appeal itself to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from an order passed prior to Ist April, 1959, is a different matter. We are only concerned with the limited question whether in an appeal like that, it is open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to enhance the turnover. If the appellate power is to be exercised as if this Act (the 1959 Act) had not been passed, it is explicit there will be no power in the appellate authority, whatever his designation may be, to enhance the assessment. The Tribunal came to the correct conclusion on the point, and the petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 115 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e determined at Gondia weigh-bridge. The condition about payment of price on determination of the weight at Gondia weigh-bridge is for the purpose of ascertaining the exact weight. It is not a condition of sale. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the delivery of the goods was made at Katangi and from Katangi the goods were despatched by the buyer but it reached the conclusion that the movement was in pursuance of the contract of sale because the weight of the goods was to be deter. mined at Gondia weigh-bridge. In our view, the Tribunal was in error in applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court and its conclusion is wrong. 10.. For the above-said reasons, our answer to the question is that the sales in question were not sales made in the course of inter-State trade and commerce but were intra-State sales. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. Hearing fee Rs.150. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1967 (7) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . was concerned with what was called Maha Bhringraj Hair-oil. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that it was a toilet article within entry 11 of Schedule I, Part I, of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The facts in this case do not admit of any doubt as to the character of the article Sarvaroga Sanjeevi Thailam . The Tribunal s opinion is that it is primarily a drug which may be used mainly as a cure to the skin diseases and merely because its application may incidentally lend beauty will not alter the true character of the article. We are inclined to accept this view. Having regard to the composition of the article and the advertised use for which it is intended, namely, as a medicinal preparation and a cure for skin diseases, we are of opinion that it does not fall within the description of any one of the articles in item 51 of the First Schedule. The tax case is dismissed and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Tax case dismissed and writ petitions allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 113 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . If so, the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal on this issue is correct. 8.. One further contention arising in T.R.C. No. 14 of 1966 and pressed before us was that the appellants were not the first seller in the State in respect of the 1948 model truck and the turnover for the same has to be exempted from assessment. This plea was overruled by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners have not proved that they are not the first sellers in the State. There is absolutely no tenable ground to interfere with that finding. The order of the Tribunal in T.R.C. No. 14 of 1966 has only to be confirmed. 9.. In the result, we dismiss T.R.C. No. 14 of 1966. We set aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal which are the subject-matter of T.R.C. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1966 and direct the Tribunal to take back Tribunal Appeals Nos. 663 and 664 of 1963 to its file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs in all the cases. Ordered accordingly.
-
1967 (7) TMI 112 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tain propositions in regard to that matter may be considered to have got recently settled. We cannot, as we think, approach the question of sufficient cause from the result of the writ petitions either. No doubt there was a delay of about thirty days in filing the appeals even after the result of the writ petitions was known. But that, in the circumstances, is explainable. Apparently, they were waiting for copies of the orders of the High Court in the writ petitions. The long delay, we are inclined to think, in filing the appeals was more due to the time taken by the pendency of the writ petitions in this Court. We are of opinion that, on the facts and circumstances of these cases, the delay ought to have been condoned. The petitions are allowed. The orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and of the Tribunal are set aside and the Appellate Commissioner is directed to take the appeals on his file and dispose of them in accordance with law. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 111 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere to mean that at all times and for all purposes coconut is an oil-seed, we respectfully differ. We are in agreement with the ratio as set out in the decisions reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kajjam Ramachandraiah 1961 12 S.T.C. 795.and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhat Rai and Co. 1966 18 S.T.C. 285. In this view of ours that coconut is not an oil-seed, we are unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal which mainly rested its conclusion on that basis. As already stated, the finding of the Tribunal that coconuts are not vegetables was not seriously canvassed before us and it is not necessary for us to deal with it. In view of our conclusion as above that coconuts are not oil-seeds, the order of the Tribunal is set aside in so far as it relates to the subject under discussion, the matter should be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the appeal before it in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in this revision case. Case remitted.
-
1967 (7) TMI 110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al s view is accepted, we do not see how the provisions relating to deduction of excise duty and deduction of the commission agent s turnover from the turnover of the principal could properly be worked. If, for instance, a commission agent is not allowed to deduct the excise duty from the turnover in his hands which is brought to charge, and the principal claims deduction of the entire turnover as provided by rule 6, he will, on the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the rule, be entitled to claim deduction of excise duty also. If both deductions are made, the assessee will get a double advantage. Apart from this, we are of opinion that the transactions being essentially those of the principal brought to tax in the hands of the dealer, notwithstanding the apparent tenor of the relative rules, the commission agent as a dealer will be entitled to deduction of excise duty from the corresponding turnover in his hands. The petitions are allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 109 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thout giving him any power to recoup the amount of the tax payable from any other party. 16.. Contention No. (5)-The contention is based on Article 276 of Constitution under which taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments shall not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees per annum. In order to attract the article the tax must be a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. As we have already indicated, the tax with which we are concerned is a sales tax coming under entry 54 in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It is impossible to say that it is in any sense a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments within the meaning of those expressions as used in Article 276 of the Constitution. 17.. In the light of what is stated above we must dismiss the original petition as well as the three writ appeals before us. We do so, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Petition and appeals dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e by the Bombay dealer was to fulfil contracts entered into with foreign buyers or orders already received from them. Notwithstanding the misdirection of the Tribunal on the question of privity of contract, its conclusion has to be sustained. The last item consists of sales of empty tins, dealwood boxes, hoop iron, tiles, cinder etc. The assessee during the relevant years was a dealer in yarn and cotton. It was not its business to deal in goods like dealwood boxes, hoop iron, tiles etc. In the course of its business it came by these goods which it had necessarily to dispose of. The Intention in selling them was not to do business as such. This part of the turnover is covered by the principle in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1967 19 S.T.C. 1. T.C. No. 170 of 1964 is allowed in respect of the first item of turnover and both the tax cases are allowed in respect of the last item. In other respects they will stand dismissed. No costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e agents of the assessee, it was right. As pledgees, the banks, acting under section 176 of the Contract Act, had a right to sell the goods. Their sale was but an exercise of the statutory power and not as agents. But the sales were nevertheless on behalf of the pledger, for, the pawn or pledge by itself did not make the pawnee or pledgee the owner of the goods. The very concept of a pledge carries with it the elements of custody and a power to sell the goods in default of payment. This is evident in this case by the fact that after crediting towards the debts due from the pawner, the balance of the sale proceeds were paid over to him. We are also unable to accept the other view of the Tribunal that even assuming that the banks acted as agents, they would be dealers and they alone would be liable to pay the tax under section 8 or section 14(a). The petition is allowed in respect of the first item of turnover but dismissed in other respects. No costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... act, it was arrived at on that basis. This item will literally, therefore, fall within the ambit of sub-section (2) and it would follow therefrom that ipso jure the jurisdiction to levy penalty under sub-section (3) becomes available. The whole of the assessment as we read section 12, need not necessarily be only under sub-section (2) of that section. The assessment may be partly under sub-section (1) and partly under sub-section (2). In any case, where part of the assessment is not based on estimate or best judgment, it is clearly not within the purview of sub-section (2) and, therefore, in respect of such part of the assessment, there will be a bar to levy penalty under sub-section (3). On that view, we allow the appeal so far as items 1 and 3 are concerned, but dismiss it in regard to the second item and the penalty in respect of it. In view of the fact that the assessee has partly succeeded and partly failed before us, we make no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Pradesh and Kerala and from out of the stocks transferred to Madras, there were subsequent sales inside the State, there is no snapping of the chain of successive sales. Though the sales inside the State followed the interstate sales, in point of fact the inter-State sales were the first sales in the State but for their interState character, so long as the goods involved in the transactions are identical. On that view it seems to us that there is no question of charging the sales inside the State which followed the inter-State sales and then making a refund of the local tax. As in our opinion the inter-State sale was also factually the inside sale, which occasioned the movement of the goods, that is the first sale in the State, which attracts the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the goods having thus suffered tax, there is no subsequent liability on them to a further single point tax under the local law. The petitions are allowed but with no costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e rules for compelling submission of returns. But we fail to see how this rule enables prescription of a time-limit for submitting the declarations for purposes of section 3(3). The last contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is that since the Madras General Sales Tax Rules have been placed before the Legislative Assembly for its approval, the rules have the force of a statute. Surely, on that account the rules cannot be equated to an Act of the Legislature, which has got to be passed in accordance with the constitutional requirements. The approval of the Legislature means nothing more than that it is a sort of a check upon delegated legislation, and does not in any way alter the quality or character of the rules as made under the rule-making power. The rules as approved by the Legislative Assembly undoubtedly have the force of law, but not the force of an enactment of the Legislature. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 103 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... concerned. The petitioner is a dealer in tea and the sale of the shade trees should by its nature be an isolated transaction, occurring, perhaps in a generation or two. There is no regular frequency for such sales and we are unable to hold that the petitioner is a dealer as far as the old shade trees sold by the company are concerned. In this view, the T.R.C. has to be allowed to the extent indicated above and we do so. The point was not specifically urged before the Tribunal and in view of that there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clause (b) with reference to the time of appropriation of the goods to the contract by the seller or by the buyer with or without the assent of one or the other. If this test is applied, namely, appropriation, as is contended for the assessee, the completion of the inter-State sale cannot be determined with reference to the delivery but only with reference to the appropriation itself. The further question would be whether in view of the tests applied by section 4(2) the conventional tests as to completion of sales to be found in the Sale of Goods Act will any more apply. The Board has not directed its mind to any of these questions both factual and legal. In the circumstances we are unable to accept the conclusion of the Board of Revenue. The Tax Case is allowed and the Board is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh after examining all the relative documents includIng the orders and agreements and considering the applicability of section 4(2)(b). No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 101 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere even the revenue does not appear to dispute that the C Form issued by the out-of-State purchasing dealer was lost in transit by the bank through whom the documents were negotiated. If the delay in getting a duplicate form is explained or if a counterfoil of the C Form is produced, either in the form of its original or of a photostat copy which is as authentic, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may consider whether it is not filed within a reasonable time. He and the Tribunal were in error In approaching the question from the standpoint of strict limitation in filing these forms along with the returns. In view of this error, we are disposed to allow this petition. The petition is allowed. The Tribunal will restore the appeal on its file and dispose it of afresh after receiving the photostat copy of the counterfoil and considering on its merits whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 100 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vehicles and vehicular spare parts as also electrical lightings as materials used in the manufacture of goods are also applicable as reasons which should induce us to hold that the industrial gloves were used in the manufacture of finished products. We do not agree that unless an item of goods is consumed in the manufacture, the same cannot be said to be goods used In the manufacture. The test is, as the Supreme Court held, that if any goods be required in the process of manufacture, then such goods would fall within the expression in the manufacture of goods . We are satisfied on the evidence that the gloves were required in the process of manufacture of goods and, as such, we hold that they are used in the manufacture of goods. In the view that we take, we answer the question referred to this Court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The respondent shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee. K.L. Roy, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1967 (7) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Meeting and Proceedings – Power of Company Law Board to Order Meeting to be Called, Removal of Director, Notice for meeting
-
1967 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... n in it, the rejection of the Liquidator s objection was correct. This view was followed in the Gorakhpur Electric Supply Co. s case (supra). It will thus be seen that in both these cases leave was granted when the suits were still within time and the filing of fresh suits after the grant of the leave would have been, as observed in Peoples Industrial Bank Ltd. s case (supra) a mere technicality. I am, therefore, satisfied that as the present application was filed on a date on which the suit was time barred no leave on its basis can be granted. On behalf of the applicant reliance was also placed on the decisions in J. A. Dixit v. Official Liquidator AIR 1963 All. 284 and Simplex Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Hindustan Tools Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1960 30 Comp. Cas. 251 but as these decisions have not the remotest bearing upon the question involved in the present case, it is not necessary to comment upon them. The result, therefore, is that this application fails and is dismissed.
-
1967 (7) TMI 89 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Application for winding up of a company ... ... ... ... ..... isfied that if the company had contested or sought to contest those petitions it would have been proper to have made an order upon the evidence which was before Pennycuick J., but it may be that the answer to that question would depend upon the state of the evidence. Mr. Nourse has suggested that the effect of section 169 is really to throw upon a company or any person who seeks to dispute the accuracy of the inspectors report, the onus of adducing evidence which will be of such a character as to throw the onus back on the Board of Trade. I do not feel that it is necessary in this case to make any observation on that argument, for it does not arise in the present case. Here, nobody has appeared to contest the allegations contained in the petition. The allegations are, in my judgment, adequately supported by the evidence and I think that it is right that I should make a winding-up order. Accordingly, I will make the usual compulsory order. Solicitors Solicitor, Board of Trade.
|
