|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 80 Records
-
1967 (8) TMI 114
... ...
... ... ..... he particular facts. The primary point to bear in mind in such cases is what is the intention of the parties viewing the transaction as a whole do they intend an apportionment or view the transaction on compartmental basis as that which represents labour and that which represents sale of the materials. Different tests may be applied in answering such a question as the stage of passing of property, risk and the like. But all these tests converge towards finding out what the intention of the parties is When once it is found that what was sold was only a finished product and the finding is justified on the materials on record, we do not see how an intention could be spelt out to keep separately labour and the materials. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that what the customer wanted was a finished product for which he paid. On that view it came to the conclusion that the transaction is a sale. We accept its finding. The tax case is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 113
... ...
... ... ..... e is supposed to obtain it from the prescribed authority, for purposes of section 8(4)(a). On our construction of the proviso to section 9(1), there is a lacuna in it. The objects and reasons for enacting the proviso to section 9(1) are thus stated In the case of a second or subsequent sale by a registered dealer to an unregistered dealer which will not be covered by sub-section (2) of section 6 as proposed to be amended by clause 3, tax will be levied and collected in the State where the registered dealer making the sale has his place of business. Apparently, the proviso, as enacted, is intended to have a wider scope to include also subseqent sales by a registered dealer to a registered dealer without compliance with the proviso to section 6(2). But the actual language employed by the proviso to section 9(1) does not cover a case like this and vest jurisdiction in the State of Madras to tax it. The tax case is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 112
... ...
... ... ..... there were some portions in the Tribunal s first order which may be understood as an admission of default by the petitioner. Mr. Katageri has pointed out to us that one of the contentions advanced before the Tribunal by the petitioner was that the petitioner was not in default since he was granted time by Government to pay the arrears of tax and the grant of such time took the case outside the provisions of section 13 and he submitted that there was a Government circular governing that matter. However that may be, we understand the first order made by the Tribunal as an order by which there was a full remand of the entire matter. That is the proper way of comprehending it. So the Commercial Tax Officer should now proceed to investigate the matter in all its aspects including the question whether the petitioner was a defaulter, and if so, to what extent. The petitioner will get his costs in this revision petition. Advocate s fee rupees one hundred (Rs. 100). Petition allowed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 111
... ...
... ... ..... for the taxing authorities to restate all the facts and circumstances and then record the finding that there was the necessary implied contract to sell the packing materials. 9.. Shri Dharmadhikari then urged that there was no finding by the taxing authorities as to how much material was used by the assessee for packing purposes during the assessment period. This submission is also without any substance. The assessee itself had claimed deduction of certain amount indicating the cost price of the material utilised by it in packing the cotton bales. That amount was taken to be the sale price of the material supplied by the assessee and that was treated as the turnover. There was, therefore, no question of determining the quantity of the material used by the assessee. 10.. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question is in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Hearing fee Rs. 150. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1967 (8) TMI 110
... ...
... ... ..... ict such authority from exercising such illegal jurisdiction. We are, therefore, satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that the purported exercise of jurisdiction by the 1st respondent to levy the impost on Terylene, Terene, Dacron, Nylon etc., and the impugned notices issued by him are totally violative of the rights of free trade and is obviously in the exercise of jurisdiction when he has none. The rule nisi issued, therefore, is made absolute and W.P. No. 2927 of 1966 is allowed with costs. The other writ petitions were also heard along with the above. No fresh arguments were addressed either for or against the petitioners in the remaining cases. Following the reasoning as above, W.P. Nos. 2928, 2934, 2935, 2956 to 2963, 2993 and 2994 of 1966 and 48, 50, 51, 60, 101 to 103, 129, 135 to 139, 156, 214, 215, 216, 237, 238, 254 to 257, 370, 380, 433, 434, 440, 551 to 554 and 642 to 645 of 1967 are allowed with costs, one set. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 109
... ...
... ... ..... cessary. The assessment of the escaped turnover in this case was on 15th October, 1963, that is, within three years next succeeding 1960-61, the year to which the tax relates. 10.. In the light of what is stated above we must hold that proceedings to assess the escaped turnover were validly initiated on 8th October, 1963. Wemustalsoholdthatthesaidturnoverwasvalidlyassessedwithin the time prescribed by rule 33(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. 11.. A further contention of the assessee is that certain sales of medicine from the assessee s place of business in pursuance of prescriptions issued should be considered as free from taxation by virtue of a G.O. dated 5th February, 1951. We have already held that those sales which the assessee styles as prescription sales do not come within the ambit of that G.O. in our judgment in T.R.C. No. 28 of 1966. We see no reason to depart from that conclusion. 12.. The T.R.C. fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 108
... ...
... ... ..... cer in respect of which there was no appeal was tax which the dealer admitted to be due. The tax becomes payable in that contingency in respect of that matter, not because there was an admission by the dealer but because there was a determination by the Commercial Tax Officer. The contention urged before us overlooks the distinction between an admission and an adjudication. In our opinion, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in taking the view that no further tax was payable under the second proviso to section 20(1). We therefore dismiss these revision petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 107
... ...
... ... ..... tel nikalta hai. The word tilhan thus means plants which are sown as a crop and from the seeds of which oil is extracted. Now, groundnut is sown as a crop by cultivators in our State, and it is admitted that oil is extracted from the seeds of groundnut. According to the meaning of the word tilhan , groundnut will be an oil-seed. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of opinion that groundnut is an oil-seed and that accordingly the appellant has been rightly taxed. It may be noticed in passing that the appellant s writ petition was dismissed summarily by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appellant should avail of the statutory remedy of appeal from the order of the Sales Tax Officer. It seems to us that the appellant should have gone to the appellate authority, but having held on merits against the appellant, we would hesitate to dismiss the appeal for that technical reason. The appeal is dismissed with costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. Appeal dismissed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 106
... ...
... ... ..... rials is not chargeable to tax. That the sales of scrap by the assessee is not liable to tax, is covered by the principle of our judgment in T.C. Nos. 170 and 213 of 1964 (M/s. Loyal Textile Mills, Kovilpatti v. State of Madras by D.C.T.O., TirunelveliSince reported at p. 195 supra.) and so too canteen sales by our judgment in T.C. No. 152 of 1964 (The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division v. Sri Thirumagal Mills Ltd.Since reported at 1967 20 S.T.C. 287.). So far as the penalty is concerned, this clearly is unsupportable, because the turnover relating to publicity materials was disclosed by the assessee s accounts and it cannot be suggested that the return submitted was incomplete or inaccurate and that a best judgment in that sense was called for. Section 12(3) of the Act will clearly have no application. We hold, therefore, that the penalty of Rs. 1,000 is illegal. The tax cases are allowed with costs one set. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 105
... ...
... ... ..... sale can be so reconstructed if there was in the contract for the execution of a work, a stipulation for the supply of goods to be used during such execution. This they could not. Mr. Shantharaju made the submission that even if the contract between the parties contained a stipulation for the payment of a consolidated sum of money by the one party to the other, that stipulation did not preclude the identification of a contract of sale if one existed. So stated, the proposition may be unexceptionable if there are two separate contracts and one of them was for the sale of goods for a specific price. But in the absence of a finding that there was one, the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained and we set them aside. The petitioner will get his costs in these two revision petitions. Advocate s fee Rs. 100, one set. The amounts deposited by the petitioner in these two revision petitions will be refunded. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 104
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioner in his return which stands completely excluded by the finding recorded by the Commercial Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner. We therefore allow this revision petition and direct the Commercial Tax Officer to make a modification of the assessment. Normally we should have directed the computation of the sales tax at 11 per cent. on articles made of gold or silver and at 2 per cent. on other articles of jewellery. But Mr. Srinivasan says that the sales tax may be computed at 2 per cent. on all the finished articles of jewellery since, according to him, every article of jewellery manufactured did have some kind of a precious stone or artificial stone. That being so, we make an order that the sales tax will be computed for the entire turnover of the articles of jewellery disclosed by the petitioner at 2 per cent. of the turnover, The petitioner will be entitled to his costs of this revision petition. Advocate s fee rupees one hundred (Rs. 100). Petition allowed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 103
... ...
... ... ..... m sales tax in respect of the sales of such goods effected after the 28th February, 1951. We agree with the contention of Mr. Mukharji. Rule 3(19) was enacted for the benefit of the dealers in Coach Behar. It granted no rights, fundamental or otherwise, to the dealers in other parts of West Bengal who had already charged the sales tax from its purchasers on sales made to its customers in West Bengal. Whether in view of the fact that the Act had been extended to Cooch Behar on and from the Ist of January, 1951, the assessee would be entitled to any relief in respect of its sales to Cooch Behar after that date under any other provision of the Act, is not before us for determination and we express no opinion thereon. In the premises, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is also answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee is to pay the costs of this reference. BANERJEE, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1967 (8) TMI 102
... ...
... ... ..... also the further fact that the straps as well as the soles are commodities saleable as such in the market. The petitioner in T.R.C. No. 125 of 1966 has himself effected several sales of cutsoles and straps as such during the assessment year in question and the relative turnover has been exempted from taxation on the ground that he is not the first seller in respect of those articles. It would thus be clear that the straps and the soles have a separate commercial identity of their own quite distinct from that of a chappal. 13.. We are, therefore, of the view that the turnover in dispute does not represent sales by the petitioners of the very same commodities which they had purchased from the manufacturers as soles or straps. The sales of chappals effected by the petitioners were first sales of the said goods within the State and were, therefore, rightly assessed to tax. 14.. The revision petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1967 (8) TMI 101
Whether Notification No. 3483-E & T-54/723(CH), dated the 5th August, 1954, whereby exemption from sales tax granted by the Government in respect of edible oils was abolished in the case of such edible oils produced in ghanis run by mechanical process was intra vires and not a law made by the Legislature of the State which requires the previous assent of the President of India?
Held that:- Appeal partly allowed. The respondents are not liable to pay tax on sales of edible oil produced in ghanis run by mechanical power effected by them before September 11, 1956. But they are liable to pay tax on such sales made after September 11, 1956.
-
1967 (8) TMI 100
Whether the Madras State had jurisdiction to levy sales tax on the alleged "Explanation sales" by the respondent during the period between April 1, 1955 to September 5, 1955, by virtue of explanation (2) to section 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court came to the conclusion that the goods were delivered to places outside the Madras State for the purpose of consumption in the delivery States. The High Court added that it was hardly worth-while in these circumstances to direct a remand of the case to the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh enquiry. It is manifest that the finding of the High Court on this point is a finding on a question of fact and as there is proper material to support the finding of the High Court it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that the finding is in any way defective in law.
-
1967 (8) TMI 99
Whether this statutory provision served to lift the ban imposed by section 26 of the General Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Whether in the light of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 (Central Act 7 of 1956), read with the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act as amended up to 1956, the finding of the Tribunal is correct?" We amend the question accordingly. We allow the appeal and answer the question in the affirmative. The matter must now go back to the High Court and the High Court should remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal with our opinion on the question as reframed. In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1967 (8) TMI 78
Ascertainment of directors retiring by rotation and filling up vacancies ... ... ... ... ..... position to look after their interests and to act as a check on the alleged mismanagement by the majority group of shareholders. Moreover, as Mr. Bhatt has pointed out, the gravamen of the complaints contained in the petition is summarised in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the present judge s summons, and it shows clearly that what is alleged is that respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are conducting the affairs of the 1st respondent-company in a manner prejudicial to its interests and also prejudicial to public interest, as also in a manner oppressive to the minority group of shareholders. It is not for me to consider at this stage whether or not those allegations are well-founded, but the same are sufficient for the petitioners to maintain a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. This contention of Mr. Nariman must, therefore, also stand rejected. In the result, I make the summons absolute in terms of prayers (a ), (b) and (e) thereof. Counsel certified.
-
1967 (8) TMI 77
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties . Even apart from the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, the employee can, on the ground of contravention of a standing order, raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, as has been maintained in several cases Guest, Keen, Williams Limited v. Sterling 1959-60 16 FJR 450 AIR 1959 SC 1279, 1284, Management of U. B. Dutt and Co. (Private ) Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1963 SC 411, 412. In any case, the petitioner has come to this court without resorting to any of these alternative remedies only to stop the inquiry pending before the inquiry officer appointed by the employers. In the circumstances of this case, relief under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be granted. Nothing said herein will be deemed to be a pronouncement on the merits of the applicant s case. The rule is discharged without any order as to costs.
-
1967 (8) TMI 76
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent, directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... . Once the report is submitted under due process of law, the course of law comes into operation and the applicant cannot stem such progress by retracing his steps to the portals of this court and ask for a re-investigation and a re-hearing of his application which factually and in the eye of law has already been closed. There being full force in the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that this court can no longer exercise any jurisdiction in the matter of disposal of this application, as everything that can be done has been done by the learned judge in his earlier order, I hold that the applicant has no locus standi to ask this court to re-investigate and re-hear this application on the basis of the inspector s report. Whatever remedies are available to him in law, the applicant can seek. But he cannot ask this court to give him the reliefs as set out in the judge s summons. This application is therefore dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1967 (8) TMI 75
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... that it is impossible for the business of the company to be carried on for the benefit of the company as a whole, in view of the fact that they show the way in which the voting power is held and used. In the instant case the petitioner has alternative remedies for the redress of his grievances. The said remedies can be found in sections 163, 167, 210 and 220 of the Companies Act. The said remedies can also be found in clauses 66, 69 and 73 of the articles of association of the said company (see Anglo-Greek Steam Co. In re 1866 2 Eq. 1, 10, Cuthbert Cooper and Sons Ltd rsquo s case ( supra), Jan-bazar Manna Estate Limited, In re 19311 1 Comp. Cas. 243 AIR 1931 Cal. 692, 696. In the premises I am of opinion that there is no reasonable ground for the petitioners to make this application. The petitioners, in my view, have failed to establish that it is just and equitable that the said company should be wound up. This application, therefore, must fail and is dismissed with costs.
|
