|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 159 Records
-
1971 (8) TMI 192
... ...
... ... ..... trade, that is to say, it has something to do with trade or has the incidence or elements of trade or commerce, it will not be within the definition of business in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended by Act 15 of 1964. The words in connection with or incidental or ancillary to in the second part of the definition of business still preserve or retain the requisite that the transaction should be in the course of business understood in a commercial sense. The intention of Madras Act 15 of 1964 is not to bring into the tax net a transaction of sale or purchase which is not of a commercial character. A fortiori in the instant case, when the Devasthanam, whose laudable objects have already been enumerated by me, disposed of their articles of silverware etc., deposited in the Hundis, then, it cannot be said that the Devasthanam was indulging in business in a commercial sense. This writ petition is therefore allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 191
... ...
... ... ..... their objections by the end of the working day in question notwithstanding the fact that an hour, a minute or a second of the day is noted in that order. In the instant case, therefore, the normal presumption is that the petitioner would be entitled to file his objections on or before 25th March, 1967, itself and therefore there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the petitioner did not have a real opportunity to state his case, as the assessment order was made on that day itself. On this only ground, the rule nisi is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. The subject-matter is remitted to the file of the respondent for him to proceed with the enquiry into the notice after taking into consideration the objections filed already by the petitioner and such other representations as may be made at the hearing excepting the plea of limitation as to the making of the order of assessment itself, if one has to be passed ultimately. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 190
... ...
... ... ..... nvolve any process of manufacture. Distillation is a process by which impurities from water are removed so that it can safely be used for diluting medicines while preparing mixtures and for certain injections. By itself the distilled water has no pharmaceutical or medicinal properties. Its use in medicines and pharmaceutical preparations does not make it a medicinal or pharmaceutical preparation. In fact distilled water is used in many other ways, such as in motor car batteries. We are clearly of opinion that distilled water is neither a medicine nor a pharmaceutical preparation, nor, indeed, is it prepared through any manufacturing process. The notification in question has no application whatsoever. This petition is accordingly allowed. The supplementary assessment order passed under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1967-68 is quashed, so far as it seeks to impose tax on the turnover of distilled water. The petitioner is entitled to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 189
... ...
... ... ..... en used in the sense of enactments like the Indian Penal Code. If both these phrases in the context are read to indicate a criminal prosecution, the exception under clause (a) will not cover an enquiry in the election petition. To our mind, this exception under clause (a) cannot be read so widely as contended for by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. There would have been no meaning in prohibiting all courts from taking into evidence any of the documents filed under the Sales Tax Act if the exception had been so wide as to cover all possible investigations. Reading the whole provision together, we are satisfied that sub-section (3), clause (a), applies only to criminal investigations and prosecutions for offences. 4.. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. We direct respondent No. 1 not to take the documents of the sales tax department into evidence. Parties will bear their own costs. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 188
... ...
... ... ..... tion 12-A before it was amended by Act 9 of 1970. In view of the fiction introduced by section 9 of the amending Act, we have to hold that section 12-A as it now stands was in existence at all material times, and, that being so, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make the assessment order dated 25th March, 1966, on the escaped turnover of the petitioner and levy tax. Therefore, the levy of tax demanded is one without jurisdiction. Article 265 of the Constitution states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. In the instant case, the tax is not levied by authority of law. Therefore, the first respondent is not entitled to recover the amount demanded from the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition and issue a direction to the first respondent to forbear from enforcing the recovery of the tax amount demanded pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 25th March, 1966. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 187
... ...
... ... ..... onsistent provision in the statute. It is not a case of repugnancy but is one of not invoking the implied power after conferment of express power on a particular functionary. That apart, as has already been stated, section 13(5), proviso, is inconsistent with the exercise of implied power. If implied power is invoked, the proviso would be rendered nugatory. 21.. On the aforesaid analysis, we are clearly of opinion that after the introduction of section 13(5), proviso, the Tribunal cannot invoke the implied power in the matter of granting stay during the pendency of the second appeal. With regard to other matters for which there is no express provision in the statute, it is still open to the Tribunal to exercise implied power. 22.. In the result, the writ application is allowed. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 30th of March, 1970. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. PATRA, J.-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1971 (8) TMI 186
... ...
... ... ..... 1). For the reasons recorded above, we answer the third and the fourth questions in the negative, namely that there is no sale of liquor and consequently of the packing material, that is, the bottle. Question No. (5).-This question was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee. We answer this question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The net result, therefore, is that the first question is answered against the department with regard to the assessments for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 and in its favour for the assessment year 1958-59. The second question is answered in favour of the department but its answer would be of no material consequence in view of our answer to questions Nos. (3) and (4). Those questions have been answered against the department. Question No. (5) has been answered in favour of the department. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1971 (8) TMI 185
Whether a dealer can elect assessment year basis from previous year basis under rule 39 in a case in which section 18(4) applies warranting assessment on previous year basis?
Whether the election so made and the resultant original assessment on assessment year basis would operate as a bar warranting the subsequent assessment to be completed on assessment year basis?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Matter is concluded by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow v. Madan Lal Dayal Chand [1967 (4) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein follows that an assessment in contravention of section 18(4) of the Act though in conformity with rule 39 is an invalid assessment.
Section 18(4) applies to assessments under section 21 as well. No separate procedure is prescribed by the Act for assessments under section 21. Further there can be no estoppel against statute. While dealing with question No. 2, it is not necessary for us to decide as to the validity of the original assessment.
-
1971 (8) TMI 184
Levy of sales tax on the sale of petroleum coke - Held that:- Appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. At any rate, the language employed is so wide, viz., "coke in all its forms", that petroleum coke which is a form of coke cannot possibly be excluded merely by reference to the word "coal". The writ petition shall stand allowed only to the extent that the State will be entitled to levy tax under the Assam Act not exceeding the rate given in clause (a) of section 15 of the Central Act.
-
1971 (8) TMI 183
What is the point of levy of purchase tax in respect of certain transactions relating to purchase of groundnut or groundnut kernel by the assessees-appellants under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The very act of purchase by a miller attracts the liability to pay tax under section 5 read with Schedule III, item 6. His subsequent dealings in those goods becomes irrelevant. In none of the cases before us it was shown that any of the assessees had purchased groundnuts with a view to sell them. Hence we need not go into the question as to what would be the position in law where a miller purchases some groundnut for milling and the rest for sale.
-
1971 (8) TMI 160
Documents, etc., to be delivered to registrar by foreign companies, carrying on business in India, Company’s failure to comply with part xi not to affect its liability under contracts, etc.
-
1971 (8) TMI 151
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1971 (8) TMI 150
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... the winding-up application is bona fide. In the circumstances, I hold that the dispute sought to be raised by the company as to the debt due by the company to the petitioning-creditor is not at all a bona fide dispute. In the result, I make an order that if the company pays a sum of Rs. 98,583 44 to the respondent s solicitor by 15th November, 1971, towards the respondent s claim, then the Company Petition No. 201 of 1971 and all proceedings thereunder would be permanently stayed. In default of such payment by the company to the respondent s solicitor in terms of this order this application for stay will stand dismissed with costs and the interim stay will stand vacated. In that event the winding-up petition would be advertised once in The Statesman, once in the Ananda Bazar Patrika and once in the. Calcutta Gazette by the 15th of December, 1971, and the matter will appear in the list on the 3rd of January, 1972. The interim stay will continue till the 15th of November, 1971.
-
1971 (8) TMI 148
Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... cifically asking for winding up is not pressed, it should be taken as conceded that no ground exists to wind up and that the court cannot, therefore, be called upon to consider the question whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company. I am unable to accept that argument. The relief that could be granted under section 397 and that which could be granted under section 433 are different. The proceedings are distinct and separate, and one does not depend upon the other even though the ground urged for winding up may be that it is just and equitable, which is no doubt a ground which should be established to sustain the petition under section 397 also. The fact that such a ground is common is no bar for the prosecution of this petition under section 397. The petition is adjourned to September 6, 1971, for holding an enquiry into the allegations of mismanagement and oppression which, according to the petitioner, were committed after the dismissal of C. P. No. 68 of 1969.
-
1971 (8) TMI 146
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... etition. I have gone through the petition. It does not even purport to have been filed on behalf of any member on the basis of his consent. The petitioners who have joined in filing the petition directly have alone filed the petition. The question of attaching the schedule to the petition does not, therefore, arise. For the same reason I hold that this is not a case covered by sub-section (3) of section 399 of the Act, and the question of obtaining or filing the consent of any one does not arise in this case. According to Mr. Nanda, signed letters of consent of the petitioners themselves should have been filed as the petitioners have not signed the petition, but only their advocate has appended his signature thereto. I find no force in this contention. The second issue is also, therefore, decided against the respondents. Both the preliminary objections are, therefore, rejected with costs counsel s fee Rs. 100. To come up for the framing of issues on merits on August 26, 1971.
-
1971 (8) TMI 127
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... age of passing of an order under section 15(1) of the Rent Act which the Controller is really bound to pass under sub-section (1) of section 15 as soon as a petition for eviction has been filed on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The question of its validity really arises when after the said order, the court determines whether or not the tenant is liable to eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of the Rent Control Act. In any view of the matter, no infirmity can be found with the impugned order and the appeal is consequently dismissed. I, however, find that the time allowed by the Additional Controller by his order dated 23rd September, 1970, has already expired and, in the interests of justice, I allow time to the appellant till 12th September, 1971, to comply with the order of the Additional Controller passed under section 15(1) of the Act. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1971 (8) TMI 126
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... clear that even on the basis of the company s last balance-sheet as on August 31,1970, it had a debit balance of Rs. 1,12,289.99 and there is nothing whatever to show under what particular circumstances it can be said that the company is in a position to meet the demands of its creditors. As has been shown already, it is not possible to take the uncalled capital into consideration. It has thus been established that the company is unable to pay its debts, and should be wound up. It is therefore ordered that Messrs. S. Sohanmull Golcha Private Ltd., Johri Bazar, Jaipur, shall be wound up by order of this court. The winding-up of the company shall be deemed to commence on May 13, 1964, when the winding-up petition was first presented. The official liquidator shall, by virtue of his office, become the liquidator of the company. Let this order be advertised in the State Gazette, the Hindustan Times and the Rashtradoot. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from the company.
-
1971 (8) TMI 125
Winding up - Liability as contributories of present and post members, Powers and duties of liquidator
-
1971 (8) TMI 124
Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases
... ... ... ... ..... nd 398, it was observed that no case is made out for making an order under section 237(a )(ii). Lastly, I would also like to point out that rule 11(9) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, provides that the court can be moved under section 237 by a petition. That, of course, is not decisive. But if the construction that I put upon section 237 is correct, the fact that a petition is prescribed for moving the court may also point in the same direction. Thus, upon a proper construction of section 237, a petition can be filed under section 237(a)( ii) of the Companies Act for a prayer that the Central Government be directed to appoint an inspector to investigate the affairs of the company. Prayer (b) is to that effect and, therefore, the petition is one which can be entertained. As no further facts have been set out in the affidavit, the petition is accepted and admitted and notice of the petition should be issued to the company. Costs of this hearing would be costs in the cause.
-
1971 (8) TMI 100
Penalty (Customs) - Show cause notice - Recovery ... ... ... ... ..... a vague manner without particulars about the amount payable and the circumstances under which the levy was made. His explanation was that he did not attach any importance to that reference, because, according to him, the third respondent was frequently asking financial calls with a view to exploit him. This explanation is not believable. On the admission of the first petitioner it is clear that the third respondent, as the managing partner, also brought to the notice of the other partners that the firm had been dealt with for the importation in question and that penalty had been levied. The other partners took no action to absolve themselves from liability until they were proceeded against to recover the balance of the penalty. 11.For all the foregoing reasons I am of the view that the demand of the penalty from the partners of the firm is in no way vitiated and that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.
........
|
