|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 63 Records
-
1972 (5) TMI 58
... ...
... ... ..... fficer did not perform his duty. In the first place the reason why the petitioner s application could not be dealt with earlier has been explained in the counter-affidavit. Moreover, even if there was some lapse on the part of the Sales Tax Officer in dealing with the petitioner s application, it would not provide any justification for interpreting the clear provisions of section 4-B and rule 25-A in a wrong manner. If the petitioner thought that the Sales Tax Officer was delaying consideration of the application for certificate, he should have sought his remedy before an appropriate authority much earlier. In the result, we are of the opinion that as the order dated 1st August, 1970, directing that the recognition certificate be effective from the date of its issue restores the correct legal position, no interference with it in exercising our jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is called for. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 57
... ...
... ... ..... ng the definition of the word sugar if given in the Act. But since the Act has not defined the word sugar , it is both relevant and expedient to consider the definition of the word sugar as contained in the various enactments and orders already noted in an earlier part of this judgment to discern and appreciate not only the popular sense in which the people conversant with the subject-matter attribute meaning to the word sugar , but also the sense in which the Central Government attributes the meaning to the word sugar . For the reasons stated above, the petition is accepted and the impugned notices, annexures 19, 20 and 21, and the assessment orders passed pursuant thereto dated 13th March, 1970, 27th April, 1970, and 27th April, 1970, respectively as also the order dated 26th May, 1971, passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner in appeal, annexures P-1 to P-4, are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, however, parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 56
... ...
... ... ..... see during the proceeding, the same is not vitiated (c) Notice in form VI under rule 22 is only a method of giving reasonable opportunity . Omission to issue notice or error in such notice would invalidate the proceeding only if prejudice is established and not otherwise (d) By mistakes committed in the notice no prejudice was caused in the facts and circumstances of this case as has been indicated in the body of the judgment and (e) The judgment of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law as it suffers from infirmity in not dealing with material facts relevant to the question referred to us. That means, the Tribunal would have to deal with all the materials and record a finding whether the assessee is liable to be assessed for the relevant quarters. 23.. On the aforesaid analysis, we would accept the references. The question is answered in the negative. In the circumstances, parties would bear their own costs. G. K. MISRA, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1972 (5) TMI 55
... ...
... ... ..... only conclusion possible is that pumping sets are agricultural implements when used by agriculturists for agricultural operations. The sales tax authorities have not determined how many of such pumping sets were sold to agriculturists for irrigation purposes and how many were sold to non-agriculturists for other purposes. That is a matter which they will have to determine in order to bring to tax pumping sets which have been sold for purposes not mainly connected with agriculture. For the reasons recorded above, we allow both the petitions and quash the orders of the assessing authority, imposing sales tax on the sale of monoblock pumps to agriculturists to irrigate their lands. It will be open to the assessing authority to determine whether any pumping sets have been sold for purposes other than irrigation of agricultural land and if the authority comes to the conclusion that they have been so sold, to levy sales tax thereon. We make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 54
... ...
... ... ..... d other directors of M/s. New India Motors Pvt. Ltd. were able to dodge the Assessing Authority does not speak well of the departmental officers. If they had been vigilant, the amount would not have swelled so high. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal needs modification in the light of the observations made above, that is, it should fix the amount of security to be deposited by the petitioner-firm and split it up into two parts, one part to be deposited in one of the manners prescribed in sub-rules (a), (b) and (c) of rule 4-A and the remaining amount to be furnished in the manner provided in sub-rule (d) of rule 4-A of the Rules. For the reasons given above, I accept this writ petition and quash the impugned orders. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, is directed to redecide the matter in the light of the observations made above after hearing the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 53
... ...
... ... ..... that returns filed in the present case were good returns in the eye of law and could furnish a basis for proceedings under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The answer to this question, therefore, is in favour of the department and against the assessee. In regard to the second question, we are of the opinion that the question of issuance of notice under sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act did not arise as the assessment had not been made under that sub-section. The answer to this question as well has to be against the assessee and in favour of the department. The third question is also decided in favour of the department and we hold that the order of the Assessing Authority was within its jurisdiction and legally sustainable. In the result, the answer of this question is also against the assessee and in favour of the department. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1972 (5) TMI 52
... ...
... ... ..... own by this court. This is an elementary principle which the Sales Tax Officer ought to have known. What is more distressing is that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no attempt has been made to make amends for the gross impropriety committed by the Sales Tax Officer and instead an attempt has been made to justify his action. We must record our strong disapproval of this attitude of the department. We make it clear that the law laid down by this court is binding upon all the sales tax authorities and it is to be followed even if any of the sales tax authorities entertains a contrary view. We are satisfied that the present case was neither covered by section 22 nor were the pipes in question santitary fittings . Accordingly, the petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 7th December, 1971 (annexure C to the writ petition), is quashed. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 51
... ...
... ... ..... unless the goods reach that depot, no liability to sales tax is incurred. From this point of view, it cannot be said that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner-company or its agent to evade the payment of proper sales tax on the goods that were being carried in the truck, the driver of which presented a declaration in which the value of the goods was not correctly stated. On these facts, therefore, I hold that the officer-in-charge of the check post had no jurisdiction to seize the goods or to impose any penalty or prescribe any composition money on the payment of which the petitioner-company could get the seized goods released. For the reasons given above, I accept this petition with costs and the order of the officer-in-charge of the check post seizing the goods and charging Rs. 7,000 from the petitioner-company for getting them released is quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from it. Counsel s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 50
... ...
... ... ..... as reasons to believe that the turnover of the dealer has escaped assessment, he should act under section 21 specially in those cases where the revenue gets the benefit of the extended period of limitation. If, in spite of there being material for having reasons to believe that the turnover of the dealer has escaped assessment, the assessing authority does not act under section 21, the Commissioner of Sales Tax may invoke the aid of article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to him to act in accordance with section 21, for section 21 confers a power on him coupled with a duty to the State. So we are of opinion that section 21 gives ample guidance to the assessing authority how to exercise discretion in the particular circumstances of a case. In the result, we think that the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 does not run a foul of article 14 of the Constitution. There is no force in the petition and accordingly it is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 49
... ...
... ... ..... nting of judgments is a conspicuous illustration. When a court places an order with a printer to print its Judgments on paper supplied by the printer, the printer does not sell the printed judgments to the court. He has no property in the printed judgments, though he may have a lien thereon for the money due to him. Therefore, it is clearly a case where the printer supplies the paper and the labour. The cost of labour is not chargeable under the Act, while the cost of paper is. 3.. For the reasons stated above, the impugned assessment, exhibit P-2, as it stands, cannot be sustained. The printing charges received by the petitioner have to be deducted from the total receipts to arrive at the taxable turnover. Exhibit P-2 is, therefore, quashed and the respondent is directed to reassess the petitioner in respect of the cost of the paper involved in the execution of the works in the light of the observations herein contained. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 48
... ...
... ... ..... able in the market and the further process of roasting and grading would be commercial in nature. Reliance was placed on the report of the Inspector of Sales Tax who had been deputed by the Sales Tax Officer to ascertain the process of the production of tea. This report has been reproduced by the revising authority in its revisional order, According to the report, loose tea can be sold as such after paying Central excise duty at the rate of 25 paise per kilo. However, there is no finding by the Sales Tax Officer or by the revising authority that there is a market for such loose tea in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the circumstances, the process of grading and roasting would be a part of the process necessary to render tea-leaves fit for being taken to the market. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee would be entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1972 (5) TMI 47
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of, Powers of Court to rectify register of members
-
1972 (5) TMI 45
Dividend not to be paid except to registered shareholder, Removal of Director, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1972 (5) TMI 30
... ...
... ... ..... wealth-tax, 4th Edition at page 580 of Volume I that when the assessee had disclosed the full particulars of his property, i.e. of the agricultural lands before WTO, the mere fact of charging higher value for such disclosed assets will not amount to concealment of the particulars of wealth. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that Expln. 1 of s. 18 was clear and the value of an asset was to constitute the most important part of the particulars of the wealth. (f)It was stated by the assessee s counsel that village Haibowal was not in the Municipal limits of the city of Ludhiana up to the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the notification bringing that village in the Municipal limits came after 1st April,1975 and the IAC was not justified in relying on this fact against the assessee as he had done in his penalty orders. 9. For the reason given on merits in the earlier part of our order, we cancel the two penalties and allow the assessee s appeals. 10. Both the appeals are allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 29
Confiscation and seizure - Vehicles ... ... ... ... ..... t in Section 115 the term goods may not include vehicles in other words, the language of Section 115 does no mean that the term goods used in the other sections does not include vehicles. 9.We reiterate that the decision of Govindan Nair J. in P.S.N. Lorry Transports case was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge and we are in agreement with the conclusion of Govindan Nair, J. in that case, though not for the reason given therein alone. We are also of opinion that the reasoning of the Single Judge in the judgment under appeal is not correct. 10.The appeal is allowed, the decision of the Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 11.The jeep has already been given to the respondent on security. And under the Act, an enquiry is contemplated and such enquiry will proceed and the respondent will have all the rights he has under the Act. We have only decided that the first respondent has power to seize the jeep and nothing more. Appeal allowed.
-
1972 (5) TMI 28
Point of time at which rate of duty with respect to the goods imported by the respondent, Dutex Clock Company, from Japan is to be fixed
Held that:- There is no material on the record on which we can safely accept the appellant's averment in the affidavit in opposition produced in the High Court that the goods in question "were provisionally assessed on February 28, 1961 at the `before entry' or `prior entry' stage at the rate then prevalent". This averment was wrongly accepted by the learned single Judge and rightly rejected by the Division Bench in view of Ex. 1A. We are also unable to hold as a matter of law that Sections 37 and 57 contemplate the making of a final entry inward after the arriving vessel begins to break bulk. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court is, in our opinion, fully justified both on facts and in law and the appellant has completely failed to point out any error in that order, justifying its reversal by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails
-
1972 (5) TMI 27
... ...
... ... ..... of the Rules of this court to extend the time for filing the paper books it seems to us that there is no merit in this contention. Rule 46 of Chapter 38 of the Original Side Rules of this court empowers the court to enlarge or abridge the time appointed by the rule or fix by any order enlarging time for doing any act or taking any proceeding upon such terms as the justice of the case may require. Therefore, in an appropriate case, the court has ample power to enlarge the time for filing the paper books. We must notice, however, that the department was negligent in the matter of making this application which in our view could have been made much earlier. There is no justification for making this application after the lapse of nearly three years. But having regard to the facts of this case we make an order in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the petition. The applicant, however, should pay to the respondent the costs of this application. P.B. MUKHARJI C. J.--I agree.
-
1972 (5) TMI 26
Agricultural Income, Capital Or Revenue, Income Tax, Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... position to dispose of the sugarcane as such. On these findings the case is not covered by section 2(1)(b)(ii). We, accordingly, answer question No 2 in the negative. Question No. 3 is covered by the decision of this court in Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1971 81 ITR 170 (All). Following that decision we answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. Question No. 4 is covered by our decision in Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1971 106 ITR 559 (All). For the reasons stated in our judgment in that case, we hold that all the three items of expenditure claimed by the assessee were permissible deductions. Questions Nos. 5 and 6 are again covered by the decision in Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1971 81 ITR 170 (All). Following that decision we answer question No. 5 in the affirmative and question No. 6 in the negative. In the circumstances, we make no order as to cost.
-
1972 (5) TMI 25
Assessee Carrying On Business, Business Expenditure, Business Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off, Expenditure On Litigation, In Part, Income From Business, Let Out, Sugar Mills
-
1972 (5) TMI 24
Appellant-bank obtained a mortgage decree on the basis of an award which was made a rule of court against Messrs. B. Dharam Singh & Co. (P.) Ltd. and two of its directors - A garnishee order was issued against the tenants for recovery of taxes from out of the rent pending sale of the property - Whether this would be permissible
|
