|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 101 Records
-
1971 (7) TMI 146 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re it. The Tribunal is in error in holding that the assessing authority has power under sub-section (4) of section 14 to correct only when any new or additional material is brought to his notice which was not adverted to when he first made the assessment. Sub-section (4) provides also for reassessment at the correct rate, provided the turnover has been assessed at a lower rate and when the material made available in this case leads only to one conclusion that the turnover has been assessed at a lower rate, we fail to understand how the Tribunal could construe that sub-section (4) of section 14 is not attracted. The Tribunal was thus in error in holding that the mistake that had arisen in these two cases could be corrected only by a higher authority as provided for in section 20 and not by the original authority. In the circumstances, the order covering these two revisions is set aside and the revisions are allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... personal hearing would have been of no avail to it. We do not agree. The notice issued to the assessee merely required it to show cause against the imposition of the penalty. The assessee therefore confined its submission to that aspect. In the written explanation, the assessee did not say anything about the quantum. Had the assessee been given an opportunity of being heard, it would have made its submissions about the quantum as well and would have elaborated the written explanation already submitted by it. A written explanation, in our opinion, is not always a good substitute for an oral hearing. We accordingly answer question No. (2) by saying that there was noncompliance of the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 15-A and the penalty order was for that reason invalid. In view of our answer to question No. (2), it is not necessary to answer the other questions. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (7) TMI 144 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cross-examination of the persons whose books are sought to be used against him. We do not agree with Vaidialingam, J., that the assessing authority should produce the witnesses for cross-examination even without a request for the same from the assessee. The law is settled that when a Sales Tax Officer holds an enquiry and makes an assessment though he is not a court he should proceed in a judicial manner and come to a judicial conclusion upon the facts in accordance with the terms of the section and according to the principles of natural justice. In view of these principles, we are satisfied that the refusal to comply with the request of the assessee for cross-examination of the witnesses whose books have been relied on vitiates the proceedings. We, therefore, set aside the decisions and direct the assessing authority to assess the assessee afresh in the light of the observations made above. The revision cases are allowed, but we make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 143 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... possible by this court. Consequently, our answers to the. questions referred to are as follows (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover of the bhojanalaya of the assessee is not exempt from sales tax under Notification No. 965-V-ST dated 31st March, 1964. (2) The conclusion drawn by the Sales Tax Officer is based upon material on record. (3) It is correct to hold that the categories described in the said Notification No. 965-V-ST dated 31st March, 1964, are small operators who themselves or with the help of a few personal. servants prepare food and also serve the same and that, therefore, the bhojanalaya of a size as that of the assessee is not covered by the terms of the said notification and is not exempt from sales tax. (4) The interpretation put upon the said Notification No. 965-V-ST dated 31st March, 1964, by the Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue) is correct. 3.. Parties will bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (7) TMI 142 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hereof , the words but excluding silk fabrics, articles made thereof and hessian cloth shall be substituted. This section has been given retrospective effect by the provisions of section 10 of the Amendment Act which is as follows (1) The amendments made by......section 9 in so far as it relates to hessian cloth shall be deemed to have formed part of the Principal Act, from the commencement thereof. In view of these amended provisions the decision of this court has become obsolete and the present cases must now be decided in view of the amended law. 3.. By the aforesaid amendment hessian cloth has been clearly exempted from entry No. 6 of Schedule I and consequently is not exempt from sales tax. Therefore, our answer to the question referred is that hessian is not covered by the term cloth used in item No. 6 of Schedule I to the State Act and, therefore, is not exempt from sales tax. Parties will bear their own costs in both these references. References answered accordingly.
-
1971 (7) TMI 141 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m coal . It is only when the question of the kind or variety of coal would arise that a distinction would be made between coal and charcoal otherwise both of them would in ordinary parlance as also in their commercial sense be spoken as coal. When a person goes to a trader and asks for paper we do not think that the customer will be given a cellophane sheet. We cannot assume that our Legislature supposed that our traders have got expert knowledge in the chemical composition of paper as well as cellophane. We have therefore no doubt to hold that cellophane is not paper coming within entry 42 in the First Schedule as it stood then. The turnover resulting therefrom cannot therefore be assessed at 5 per cent. We, therefore, set aside the assessment in so far as it relates to the turnover of the sale of cellophane sheet and direct the authorities to reassess the same in accordance with section 5(1)(ii) of the Act. The revision case is allowed, but without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 140 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner has come to court soon after the issue of the challenged notice, and that, in the year 1966, and as he filed this writ petition well within a period of six months from the date of the issue, it appears to me that he is entitled to file the suit without the revenue taking up the plea of limitation under the latter part of section 59. It is expected that the revenue would not raise any such plea, having regard to the special facts and circumstances in the instant case and to the pendency of the writ petition for a considerable number of years in this court. The petitioner is granted six months time to file the suit and, in the meantime, the revenue would not pursue the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act with reference to the challenged notice. With these observations, and as the notice, as such, is not susceptible to challenge under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the rule nisi is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1971 (7) TMI 139 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thin the meaning of the definition given in section 2(d) of the Act and therefore these transactions could be assessed when made by the assessee. 10.. On the conclusions reached, we answer the two questions referred to us in this way (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the transactions of the value of Rs. 20,632.10 paise as per details furnished did not give rise to a taxable event in the hands of the assessee when the assessee debited the value of the purchases in the account of the principal, and (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case the transactions of the value of Rs. 20,632.10 paise as per details furnished gave rise to a taxable event when the assessee sold the goods so purchased in and out of Madhya Pradesh according to the instructions of the principal. 11.. As one of the questions referred to us has been answered in favour of the assessee and the other against it, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (7) TMI 138 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The short question involved in this case is as to whether ice and water are the same thing. It is true that ice is manufactured from water without addition of any chemical or substance. The chemical composition of ice and that of water is the same, but even then ice cannot be regarded as water. It is a matter of common experience that while water is generally available free, ice is always sold in the market. It is now well settled that unless it is defined in the Act or the Rules, a term in the Sales Tax Act must be interpreted in a sense in which it is understood generally and in the commercial world and not in a technical sense. Chemically, ice and water may have the same composition, but in commercial and popular sense they are different commodities. We accordingly answer the question in the negative. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to the cost of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 100. There shall be only one set of cost. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1971 (7) TMI 137 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntial date for the purpose of limitation. But for sub-section (2), there shall be no difficulty in pronouncing that one of the modes of application being its transmission by registered post, it shall be deemed to have been made as soon as it is posted. This observation of the Orissa High Court supports the view which we are taking in regard to the construction of the word sent as presentation . As we are answering the first question in favour of the assessee, it is not necessary to answer the second question. Our answer to the first question is that the memoranda of appeals presented by the assessee to the post office on 4th November, 1968, should be deemed to have been presented really to the appellate authority and were accordingly presented within the prescribed period of limitation. The appeals were not timebarred. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, shall pay costs to the assessee which we assess at Rs. 100. There shall be only one set of costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (7) TMI 136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether the loss on sale of shares of the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. and East and West Insurance Co. Ltd. was a revenue loss allowable in computing the business income of the petitioners – Held, yes – held that question Whether purchase and sale of shares amounts to dealing in shares or is investment, is a mixed question of fact and law
-
1971 (7) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT
Goods on High Seas in transit to India are outside India within the meaning of section 6(i) - Accordingly they are not required to be included in the net wealth of a non-resident assessee - Revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1971 (7) TMI 134 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the refusal of the Tribunal to allow the claim for deduction from the gross turnover on account of aggregate sales to registered dealers for reasons given by it is legally valid?
Held that:- Allow these appeals, set aside the order of the High Court and direct the High Court to readmit the tax cases. There can be hardly any doubt that the question whether the assessee is entitled to deduct under the provisions of the Act from his total turnover, the turnover relating to the sales to the registered dealers is a question of law. But the High Court before deciding that question, may have to decide whether the decision on that question is barred in view of the decision of the Board of Revenue referred to earlier. The question of law formulated by the assessee is broad enough to include that question also.
-
1971 (7) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the collection of sales tax by the dealer from his purchasers can be considered as valuable consideration received by him for the sale of goods?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. When the seller passes on his tax liability to the buyer, the amount recovered by the dealer is really part of the entire consideration paid by the buyer and the distinction between the two amounts-tax and price-loses all significance.
-
1971 (7) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court acted illegally in declining to call upon the Rajasthan Board of Revenue to state a case and refer the same to it under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court of Rajasthan was in error in refusing to call upon the Board of Revenue to state a case on the question of law arising for consideration. The only thing the High Court had to see was whether a question of law did arise out of the order of the Board of Revenue. There can be no doubt that a fairly important question of law arises from and out of that order. The Board of Revenue was not justified in refusing to refer that question to the High Court. Further the High Court erred in summarily dismissing the application made by the assessee. t a reference from the Board of Revenue the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide that question of law.
-
1971 (7) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the cloth manufactured by means of looms worked by power can be regarded as "cloth manufactured by mills" for which sales tax was payable at the rate of 6 pies in a rupee in terms of the notification dated June 8, 1948, issued under section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The fallacy in the appellant's argument is that by the same reasoning a building in which looms worked by manual labour are to be found would also have to be regarded as "mills". This would be contrary to the accepted and popular meaning of handloom or power-loom cloth and mill-made cloth. We are satisfied that the distinction which was kept in view when the notification was promulgated was between the aforesaid two categories or types of cloth involving essentially a difference in the process by which it was manufactured.
-
1971 (7) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 1,06,306.08 from the gross turnover of the dealer on account of sales to various registered dealers?
Whether a selling dealer is entitled to claim deductions from his taxable turnover of sales to purchasing registered dealers with respect to all the sales made until the date of the cancellation of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealers?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Unable to see how the questions which were sought to be referred were only of fact and were not of law. All the orders of the departmental authorities including the Tribunal appear to show that prima facie the assessee had complied with the requirements of the statute and the rules for the purpose of claiming deductions. So long as the sales were to dealers who were registered under the relevant sales tax laws and who had supplied declarations to the assessee in respect of the sales, the duty which was cast on the assessee had been prima facie performed
-
1971 (7) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, General
-
1971 (7) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Meetings and proceedings explanatory statement to be annexed to notice, Director number of, Appointment of directors and proportion of those who are to retire by rotation, Directors - Right of person other than retiring director to stand for directorship, Directors - Consent of candidate for directorship to be filed with company and consent to Act as directors to be filed with registrar
-
1971 (7) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Fraudulent preference, Winding up – Avoidance of voluntary transfer ... ... ... ... ..... o relief whatsoever has been claimed against M. K. Narayanan, the third respondent. Indeed, though Kanhiya Lal filed a suit against him also, he was given up in the Court of the Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi. The petition against the third respondent must, therefore, fail. Issue No. 4. While discussing issue No. 2, I have already observed that no particulars of fraud have been given in the petition. It is a cardinal principle of pleadings that wherever fraud is pleaded, full particulars must be set out in the pleadings themselves. This principle has statutory recognition in the provisions of order 6, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As -the petition is lacking in material particulars about allegations of fraud and mere general allegations cannot suffice, it has to be held that the petition must fail on the ground that it does not set out any particulars of the alleged fraud. Issue No. 5 The result is that the petition is dismissed, but there will be no orders as to costs.
|
