|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 119 Records
-
1970 (2) TMI 109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with a similar question relating to steel trunk, has pointed Since reported as Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain 1970 25 S.T.C. 471. out the distinction between the hardware industry and the iron and steel industry as is understood in the commercial community. Following that judgment we are of the opinion that the steel doors will not be covered by the term hardware. They would be an unclassified commodity and may be described as building material. Therefore the turnover of steel doors would be taxable under section 3 and not at 3 per cent. as classified item. We accordingly answer the question by saying steel doors are not hardwares and as such will be taxable at 2 per cent. as unclassified item or as building material but not at 3 per cent. as an item of hardware. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs. The fee of the learned counsel for the department is assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 108 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n in the Gazette, the rate of sales tax in respect of the turnover of wares made of any metal or alloy, other then brass or aluminium, would be raised from two paise per rupee to three paise per rupee at all points of sale. Iron buckets would clearly fall under that notification. That notification has not been issued under section 3-A, but under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3. It clearly shows that metal wares were never intended to be classified under section 3-A and even in 1963 iron buckets were to be taxed under section 3 and not at a higher rate under section 3-A. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question by saying that the turnover of iron buckets would be taxable at 2 per cent. as an unclassified item under section 3 prior to 1st June, 1963. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference which we assess at Rs. 100 (one set only). The fee of the learned counsel is also assessed at the same figure. References answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 107 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ories of cycles. We are, therefore, of the opinion that an article used for protection and decoration of one of the parts cannot be regarded as accessory of the vehicle. We, therefore, agree with the Judge (Revisions) that rexine covers are not accessories of bicycles, tricycles and cycle rickshaws within the meaning of entry No. 34 of the relevant notification. The second question proceeds on the assumption that rexine covers are accessories of a part of a cycle, namely, saddle. In view of our opinion that the entry in question does not contemplate the accessories of a part of the vehicles mentioned therein, this question does not arise and need not be answered. We accordingly answer question No. 1 in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department and we return no answer to question No. 2. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference which we assess at Rs. 100. The counsel fee is also assessed at the same figure. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , would depend upon how it was treated by the vendor. If he stocked and sold it as a chemical it would be sale of chemical and more so if it was bought by the vendee also as such. It will be seen that liquid gold is not manufactured for being used for purposes for which gold metal is normally used. It has a special use for decoration of glass and ceramic articles by processing them. In our opinion, the vendor as well as the purchaser of liquid gold would consider it a chemical and not gold metal. From this point of view also liquid gold will fall under the head chemicals of all kinds . It could not hence be taxed as an unclassified item. We answer the question referred to this court as follows Liquid gold was rightly taxed as chemical. It was not taxable as an unspecified item or as bullion . The Commissioner of Sales Tax would be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100, one set. The counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure. References answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 105 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... qualities. Comparing the definition of spices with that of chillies , it would be clear that chillies can also come within the ambit of spices. By the very mention of the expression spices in the registration certificate as coming within the definition of grocery no point of law arises as to whether chillies are included within the meaning of grocery . The question should have been framed as to whether chillies would come within the definition of spices. We accordingly reframe the question. In view of our holding that chillies come within the definition of spices and as spices were entered in the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer for being purchased tax-free, the petitioner is entitled to sell chillies to the purchasing dealer free of sales tax. The question, as reframed, is answered as indicated above. The reference is accepted, but in the circumstances, without costs. Reference fee deposited be refunded. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hould be satisfied. In the absence of one such mandate, as expressed in section 44, section 45(2)(d) would be attracted and such a conduct on the part of the owner or the person in charge of the goods vehicle would tantamount to a wilful act in contravention of the provisions of the Act. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no jurisdiction for the officials to intercept the vehicle, as they did, and demand for the records and other documents which a person in charge of the goods vehicle ought to carry under section 44 of the Act. The interception of the vehicle and the consequential demand and levy of composition fee being within the jurisdiction of the officers concerned, as the Board of Revenue rightly appreciated the position, there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order for us to issue a rule under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 103 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nue that because the Sales Tax Officer is not a court and is not bound by the rules of evidence, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to have a witness examined in his presence where the statement of such a witness recorded at the back of the assessee is sought to be used against him and particularly where the statements of the witnesses concerned in this case are at variance with the documentary evidence in possession of the assessee. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Judge (Revisions) is not correct and the appellate authority approached the matter from a right angle when it remanded the matter to the assessing authority to afford an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100. The counsel fee is assessed at the same figure. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 102 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting the purchaser in possession of the gudaku. 9.. On the aforesaid analysis, we are unable to agree that the learned Tribunal came to the correct conclusion. 10.. The following three questions were referred to this court (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the petitioner is realising the price of the containers from its customers in the sale of gudaku, either loose or contained? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be treated as a dealer in containers? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there is sale of the containers to the purchasers of gudaku? For the reasons already given above, our answers to all the three questions would be in the negative. 11.. In the result, the references are accepted. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of the reference fee deposited in all the five cases. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 101 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... analysis, we would answer the questions referred thus (i) The taxing officers are not precluded from making a fair and reasonable guess about the rate of profit if the same is found to be low, on a consideration of the local conditions, though the accounts are found to be correct, provided that the further condition that the information on the basis of which a fair and reasonable guess is made is supplied to the dealer and a reasonable opportunity is given to him to rebut the same, is fulfilled. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of this case, the estimation of profit rate as made was not justified and is arbitrary as it was based on surmises and conjectures, and as no reasonable opportunity was given to the dealer to know and to rebut the same. 8.. In the result, the reference is accepted but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is, however, entitled to the refund of the reference fee. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 100 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... As we have already said that once the application for registration is ultimately allowed it must be operative from the date of its filing. It could have been treated as not having been filed if it would have been ultimately rejected. We cannot, therefore, say that the dealer had not applied for registration. Accordingly rule 12(6) has no application. 6. On the aforesaid analysis, the conclusion of the assessing authorities that the assessee was an unregistered dealer during the relevant period cannot be supported. 7.. We would, accordingly, answer the question by saying that in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessments made under rule 12(6) of the Orissa Rules framed under the Central Sales Tax Act are not valid in law. 8.. The references are accepted, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. The reference fee deposited in each of these references be, however, refunded to the petitioner. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 99 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alty and would thus affect its assessment. For purposes of a proper assessment, it would be necessary for the firm to comply with the requirements of section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, namely, to supply C forms to the selling dealers in respect of the purchases it had already made on the representation that it is a registered dealer. In view of the provisions of section 3-C of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the firm is to be treated as if no dissolution had taken place, and as such it would be entitled to obtain C forms which it had already surrendered and its registration certificate, even though surrendered, shall be deemed to be intact and valid. For the reasons stated above, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this reference which we assess at Rs. 100. The fee of the counsel is also assessed at the same figure. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1970 (2) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he citizen everyday commonly. Salt is generally used for eating. The black salt, as we have seen, is also usable for the same purpose, it being useful for digestion. The department did not adduce any evidence to controvert the manner and method of production by the assessee. There is no material to suggest that it is not used for digestive purposes. Merely because the black salt may be used for preparing medicine, would not by itself mean that it is not salt as generally understood. On the scanty material on the record it would appear to us that black salt of the kind manufactured by the assessee was salt as understood in common parlance and hence would be exempt in view of section 4(1)(a), U.P. Sales Tax Act. We would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100. The fee of the counsel for the department is assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1970 (2) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y appeal against the assessment order, and that there is no case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution. We have carefully considered the objection, but having regard to the circumstance that the points raised in this petition affect a large number of persons generally, both those dealing in the commodities as well as those using them, and having regard to the patent illegality which appears ex facie in the impugned assessment order, we have considered it proper to interfere in this case. The petition is allowed. The assessment order dated 22nd July, 1969, made by the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, for the assessment year 1966-67 is quashed to the extent that the turnover of carbon-paper for the period 1st July, 1966 to 31st March, 1967, has been assessed at six per cent. and to the extent that the turnover of typewriter ribbons has been assessed at ten per cent. The petitioner is entitled to its costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 96 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds though not belonging to him, but his principal. In the instant case, the relevant papers pertaining to the transactions were not placed before the authorities below. But it was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the company that the invoices were issued by the company, that the company had possession or custody of the goods and the company was authorised to transfer the property in the goods to the purchasers. It was also conceded that the company was registered as a dealer under the Act and it collected sales tax from the purchasers It is relevant to state that before the assessing authority the company did not contend that it was not a dealer. The company submitted its return and the tax was assessed and paid. On the facts found by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was rightly held to be a dealer under the Act, and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion. In the result, the revision petition fails, and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 95 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fication No. 5028 dated 28th July, 1947, as amended by Notification No. 8728-F dated 1st July, 1949. This decision has no application to the present case. That was based on the language of item 24. The material portion of that notification was as follows Jewellery including precious stones unset precious stones and pearls real or cultured imitations of gold ornaments made of specie, jewellery, precious stones and pearls. The item was too widely worded. It is not necessary to make further reference to that decision. It is sufficient to say that the principle laid down in that decision must be confined to its own facts. 7.. We are satisfied that the Tribunal took the correct view. Our answer to the question posed would be that the impugned ornaments were taxable under serial No. 3F and are not taxable under serial No. 67. 8.. The reference is accordingly discharged but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 94 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y, the free copy being lost, the appeal would be barred by limitation. 10.. On the facts already stated, there is no dispute that the petitioner filed the appeal before the first appellate authority in time if the certified copy of the order is taken into consideration. 11.. We would accordingly answer the questions referred thus (i) The expression order in Form XVI includes certified copy of the order. (ii) Bharat Sabaigrass Ltd. v. Collector of Commercial Taxes, Orissa 1952 3 S.T.C. 453., is good law and applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. (iii) Section 12 of the old Limitation Act applies to cases of certified copy of the order necessary for filing an appeal under section 23 of the Act. 12.. On the aforesaid analysis, we accept the reference. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. The reference fee deposited in each of these references be, however, refunded to the petitioner. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1970 (2) TMI 93 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon considerations of morality, but on the operation of the Income-tax Act. Legislative injunction in taxing statutes may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated, but it may lawfully be circumvented. The aforesaid passage throws no light directly on the question in issue, but the juristic principle underlying this dictum would be a guide to come to a conclusion whether accrual of low profits, by itself, would enable the taxing authorities to declare the books of account as not being properly maintained. 5.. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal took the wrong view in rejecting the books of account merely on the ground that the rate of profits as shown therein was low. 6.. We accordingly answer the question in the negative. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. The reference fee deposited be refunded to the petitioner. ACHARYA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1970 (2) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 37 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Apart from the question of sufficient cause in view of the decision in Vidyacharan v. KhubchandA.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1099. , we are satisfied that section 5 can be invoked. If it was the old Limitation Act there was specific exclusion in section 29(2) of the applicability of a similar provision. But that is not the case now. As to the sufficient cause, it cannot be said that the appellant, in prosecuting the writ appeal, was not bona fide. All that can be said is that he should not have by-passed the statutory remedy and resorted to article 226 of the Constitution straightaway. But, in prosecuting the petition in this court surely the appellant thought that it was perhaps possible for him to get the remedy straightaway which was a mistaken impression, as it turned out to be. In the circumstances, therefore, we consider that there was sufficient cause for the delay and we excuse. The petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 91 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is power under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 20, ought to have entertained the appeals on the appellant furnishing security to his satisfaction. In this court, we have ordered the stay of collection of tax on the petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. Sri Aithal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in compliance with this court s order, the petitioner has furnished security. The said security in our opinion is sufficient and we direct that it shall be treated as security. furnished under section 20(3). If the petitioner has not furnished the security, he should do so to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner before the appeals are entertained. In the result these revision petitions are allowed, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal are set aside and we direct the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to entertain the appeals preferred by the petitioner. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 90 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fferent sales tax laws in different States into the Central Act, as if they have been enacted in the Central Act and thereby the Legislature avoided reprinting of the said provisions into the Central Act and for all practical purposes those sections of the general sales tax laws dealing with assessment and imposition of penalties are to be dealt with as if they were actually in the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956. By such incorporation the Central Government has not legislated on the State subjects as argued by Mr. Mukherjee. In the circumstances both the points urged by Mr. Mukherjee fail. The Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. The respondent-Commercial Tax Officer can withdraw the sum of Rs. 2,500 lying in deposit with the Registrar, Appellate Side, towards realisation of taxes. The authorities now can proceed in accordance with law in pursuance of the notice under section 9 read with section 11(4B) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. Rule discharged.
|
