|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 67 Records
-
1968 (3) TMI 102
... ...
... ... ..... the oil is sold should be included in his turnover. It is only when these conditions are fulfilled that deduction equal to the value of the groundnut and kernel purchased by him and converted into oil and cake is permissible. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was not right in its view, that the instant case should be decided on the basis of the decision in The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Ranganatha Rice Mill Contractors, Eluru, and OthersT.R.C. No. 53 of 1961 dated 11th November, 1963. While affirming the remand of the case to the assessing authority, we direct that the case should be decided by that authority in the light of the observations made and the principles laid down above. To this extent the tax revision case is partly allowed and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is accordingly modified in part. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 101
... ...
... ... ..... tate of Madras. Before the Supreme Court, it was not disputed that the agent of the non-resident owner of the goods was residing in the State of Madras. This aspect therefore need not detain us. Whilst therefore determining the questions formulated by the Supreme Court, we answer that the agent of the non-resident supplier was the agent covered by the explanation to the definition of the word dealer in section 2(b), that the property in the goods purchased by the assessee passed within the State of Madras, that the sale was effected by a dealer resident within the State of Madras and that such sale took place after the goods were imported within the State of Madras. In conclusion, therefore, we set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 17th April, 1959, in T.A. No. 1028 of 1958 and also the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in T.A. No. 657 of 1959 and allow these two petitions with costs one set. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petitions allowed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 100
... ...
... ... ..... him . The Financial Commissioner, under the second head, relies only on the existence of suspicions in the transactions and no evidence can be said to exist that the transactions were really fictitious. There is yet another category of evidence to which the learned Financial Commissioner had adverted in his order of 2nd of August, 1963. He has relied on an unreported decision of this Court in Messrs. Jhangi Mal Nathu Mal v. The Punjab StateCivil Writ No. 230 of 1958., that merely filing of declaration is not conclusive evidence in support of the claim for deduction. This again is not evidence and the matter of production of registration certificates is not discussed at all. On the whole, we are, therefore, inclined to think that no evidence exists to justify the conclusion of the Assessing Authorities and the reference must be answered in favour of the assessee. We would make no order as to costs of this reference. MEHAR SINGH, C. J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (3) TMI 99
... ...
... ... ..... lso contended by Mr. Rama Rao that under section 30 any person who wilfully acts in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall on conviction be liable to be punished with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. It is submitted therefore that a person who acts in contravention of the provisions of sections 28(6) and 29(3) and (4) is liable to double punishment, namely, one under section 30 and the other by way of confiscation or penalty as prescribed in those sections. This contention also is without substance. As pointed out in Sesha Reddy v. Excise Superintendent 1959 2 An. W.R. 426., the imposition of penalty is a different kind of sanction from criminal sanction. They are two separate distinct remedies. The objectives of the two sanctions are different. They are independent remedies and both of them can be availed of. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 98
... ...
... ... ..... t question which has to be decided in each case in the particular context and on the facts. For the purpose of these cases, it suffices to say that we are not satisfied that the higher rate in section 8(2)(b) is an unreasonable restriction. If the object of the higher rate is to raise more money for the Government, it should obviously be in the interests of the general public. We reject, therefore, the ground of the assessees based on Article 19(1)(f). On our view as expressed earlier of the constitutional invalidity of section 8(2)(b) in so far as it provides for a rate higher than the single or multi-point State rate on inside sales, the writ petitions and tax case are allowed. We may reiterate, however, that Mr. Thiruvenkatachari in his leading argument on behalf of the assessees for whom he appears admitted liability to the rate provided by section 8(1). The assessees in each of these cases will be entitled to costs with counsel s fee fixed at Rs. 100. Petitions allowed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 97
... ...
... ... ..... would lead to only one conclusion that there was no sale by the petitioner to Alladin and Co. and the relationship between them inter se was only that of agency. In view of this conclusion, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to his aid. There is thus no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the circumstances of the case the conclusion is inescapable that there were no sales effected by the petitioner to Alladin Co. So the amounts the petitioner paid to Alladin and Co. were not discounts within the meaning of section 2(s)(ii) of the Act and rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules. For that reason the petitioner is not entitled to deductions of those amounts from its total turnovers of the relevant assessment years. The concurrent decisions of the lower authorities are right. The tax revision cases therefore fail and are dismissed with costs of the department. Advocate s fee in each case Rs. 100. Petitions dismissed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 96
... ...
... ... ..... or the respondents, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons 1965 16 S.T.C. 231. to contend, that the transactions are not taxable at the sale point under the State sales tax law and for that reason they are not taxable under the Central Act. This, however, is a new point which he seeks to raise in the revision. It was not raised either before the Tribunal, or before any other lower authority. In the view we have taken, we do not propose to express any opinion on this question. The respondents may raise this contention if they so want before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider this contention also, if raised before it. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal will consider all aspects of the matter and decide the cases in accordance with law. The two tax revision cases are, therefore, allowed. In the circumstances of the cases we make no order as to costs in these tax revision cases. Petitions allowed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 95
... ...
... ... ..... s obtained by it from the State Government for the right to collect and appropriate gum from the trees. The petitioner should have been assessed on the sale price it obtained for the sale of gum to the various purchasers. The orders of the Sales Tax Authorities assessing the petitioner to sales tax on the basis of the consideration it paid for the contracts are, therefore, illegal. 6.. For these reasons, this petition is allowed, and the orders of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Dhar, assessing the petitioner for the periods from 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1960, and from 1st April, 1960, to 31st March, 1961, are quashed. The orders in appeal of the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax are all quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 94
... ...
... ... ..... wledgement signed by a minor son of the addressee was evidence of good service and in M. X. De Noronha and Sons, Kanpur v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1950 18 I.T.R. 928 A.I.R. 1952 All. 137., it was held that a notice to a firm sent by registered post raised a presumption of good service even though the notice was served on a clerk. We are of opinion that upon the facts of the instant case it must be presumed that the copies of the assessment orders sent by registered post were served on the petitioner on 22nd February, 1966. The view taken by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is clearly right. The petitioner is not entitled to relief on another ground also. It was open to the petitioner to apply in revision under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It has not been shown that there is any good ground for the petitioner preferring the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1968 (3) TMI 93
... ...
... ... ..... declare that the proviso to rule 8(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, is unenforceable. It must, accordingly, be held that the declaration in Form C furnished by the assessee was in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act and its turnover was, therefore, taxable at the lower rate of 1 per cent. under section 8(1) of the Act because, without the proviso, all the statutory requirements were admittedly fulfilled. Even otherwise, on the finding reached by the Tribunal, there was only one transaction of sale of tendu leaves and the declaration in Form C submitted by the assessee must be held to be valid. 5. In the view we have taken, the second question must be answered in the affirmative. The first question has, therefore, become academic and we would decline to answer it on that ground. The assessee shall have its costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 50, if certified. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1968 (3) TMI 92
Whether clause (ii) of the Explanation 11 to section 2(h), U.P. Sales Tax Act, provides for taxing sales in which goods were manufactured or produced in U.P. but for which the contract for sale was made after the goods had left the State?
If the reply to the above is in affirmative, whether this provision is ultra vires?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Present case falls within the general principle that the presumption against a retrospective construction has no application to enactments which affect only the procedure and practice of courts. For "it is perfectly settled that if the Legislature forms a new procedure, that, instead of proceeding in this form or that, you should proceed in another and a different way, clearly there bygone transactions are to be sued for and enforced according to the new form of procedure. Alterations in the form of procedure are always retrospective, unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be"
-
1968 (3) TMI 83
Repel and savings ... ... ... ... ..... e of the sons of Thulkarunai who are not responsible for the acts, if any, of contravention by their father while he was running the sole proprietorship concern. Further, it is clear that there is no provision in the Act itself that the legal representatives of a person who had contravened the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act would also be liable for the penalty provided in the Act. Originally, even in the Income-tax Act, there was no such provision. It was only after the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ellis C. Reid AIR 1931 Bom. 333 that the Income-tax Act was amended, so as to make the legal representatives of an assessee liable to pay the tax due by the assessee. I do not think, therefore, that the department is right in imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the legal representatives of Thulkarunai and Co., which was originally run by the father as a sole proprietorship concern. The writ petition is allowed the impugned order is quashed. No costs.
-
1968 (3) TMI 82
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts and Power of tribunal to stay winding-up
-
1968 (3) TMI 81
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... ooks of account of the companies are unreliable, or that different or discriminating methods of valuation have been adopted in respect of the shares of the two companies. To add to all this is the fact that both the companies practically function under a restricted membership and have a very limited number of shareholders. In such a closely-knit membership, the members have opportunities to know all about the affairs of their respective companies and it is a matter of much significance that even then they have not challenged the valuation of the shares proposed in the scheme and have, on the other hand, approved it. I have, therefore, no reason to think that the valuation is unfair. In fact it appears to me good enough in all the circumstances, and I have no hesitation in according my sanction to it. A formal order may be drawn up in the prescribed form and a certified copy thereof filed with the Registrar of Companies within fourteen days. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1968 (3) TMI 80
Registers, etc., to be Evidence, Oppression and mismanagement, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398
-
1968 (3) TMI 58
Temporary protection of employee –Protection of employees during investigation by inspector or pendency of proceedings before appellate tribunal in certain cases
-
1968 (3) TMI 57
Determination of net profits ... ... ... ... ..... taken into account. It is unnecessary for us to discuss the argument of learned counsel for the defendant because the view expressed above was not seriously disputed by him. He even said that he was finding it difficult to support the written statement. He has stated further that it is possible to argue that section 349 makes a distinction between property and trading and the provisions indicate that the managing agents are being remunerated for the management of the business for a particular period, their remuneration depends on good or bad management, and the inclusion of the previous losses (for which the managing agents concerned may not at all be responsible) in assessment of the managing agent s remuneration would be a strong deterrent to efficient management. I am generally inclined to agree with him. In the result, I answer issue No. 1 in the negative. There will, therefore, be a decree for Rs. 15, 551, interest on judgment (sic) at the rate of 6 per annum and costs.
-
1968 (3) TMI 56
Compromise and arrangements, Savings of pending proceedings for winding up ... ... ... ... ..... as urged before us that he was not aware of the order. This conduct of the appellant is reprehensible. The order is binding on him and he cannot be heard to contend against its terms. Sufficient safeguards have been made by the court below in the order challenged before us for safeguarding the interest of the appellant. It has been directed that a sum of Rs. 6,500 must be retained by the official liquidator and the claim that has been put forward on behalf of the appellant is only for Rs. 4,219.71. On the other hand, the respondents counsel has said that orders had been passed by which the appellant has been directed to pay over Rs. 6,000 to the company in liquidation. Whatever this be mdash we should not be understood as expressing any opinion in regard to the claims and counter claims mdash these are matters which are to be considered in due course. We are not at all satisfied that any interference with the order under appeal is necessary. We dismiss this appeal with costs.
-
1968 (3) TMI 37
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... n for the refund of the amount is not barred by time. Point No. 3. mdash The official liquidator s application is maintainable. Point No. 4. mdash The question whether the provisions of the Indian Companies Act pertaining to liquidation are made applicable to the Society does not arise in this case since the Society has not gone into liquidation. C.A. No. 122 of 1965 The Society (petitioner) has not made out a case under section 536(2) of the Companies Act for validation of the payments made after the commencement of the winding-up proceedings. In the result, C.A. No. 83 of 1965 is allowed, and the Chittoor District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Chittoor, will refund the amount of Rs. 62,231.25 with interest at 6 per annum from the date of the application till date of payment to the official liquidator with costs of this application. C.A. No. 122 of 1965 is dismissed, but I award no costs as the matters were heard together and costs are awarded in C. A. No. 83 of 1965.
-
1968 (3) TMI 28
Silk bolting cloth ... ... ... ... ..... a Setty AIR 1963 SC 1319 decision of the Customs Authority would not be open to interference by this Court in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the other hand, this appears to be a case where the Customs Authorities when faced with every probability and every justification for classifying this item under Item 72(3) of the Schedule, decided to classify it under Item 48(c) under circumstances which are opposed to common experience and also ordinary knowledge of the limitations in the use to which a textile fabric altered into a particular form and shape can be put into. From this point of view, the classification made by the Department of the article in question appears to be one which could not be made by any reasonable interpretation of the provision in Item 48(c) relied upon by the Department. On the other hand the petitioner s claim for its classification appears to be clearly valid. 5.This Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. No order as to costs.
|
