|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 129 Records
-
1976 (12) TMI 178
... ...
... ... ..... the Act is five years. In this case, the Board passed its order on 21st September, 1976, and that order is beyond the period of five years from 26th December, 1969, the date of the original order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer and also beyond the period of five years even from 14th September, 1971, the date of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, even assuming that it was that order, in substance, which was sought to be revised by the Board of Revenue in this particular case. The principles laid down by this court in P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras-5(1) and in T.M.L. Alagappa Chettiar v. State of Madras(2) respectively will apply to the facts of this case also. Accordingly, the tax appeal is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 21st September, 1976, is set aside. The appellants are entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (two hundred and fifty only). Appeal allowed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 177
... ...
... ... ..... on the Commissioner of Taxes, who is empowered under section 50 of the Act to delegate subject to the restrictions and conditions prescribed by the Rules made under the Act any of his powers to any person appointed under section 8 to assist him. That being so, if the Commissioner or any other taxing authority prescribed under the rule is not entitled to challenge the order of the Board, it is doubtful whether the State of Assam as such can come and challenge the order of the Board passed under the Act. For the reasons given in the decision of this court in State of Assam v. Garodia Brothers(1) (Civil Rules Nos. 812 and 813 of 1972), we hold that the petitioners in these two petitions are not competent to challenge the judgment and order of the Assam Board of Revenue and, that being so, these two petitions are not maintainable. The petitions are accordingly rejected. The rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. IBOTOMBI SINGH, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 176
... ...
... ... ..... we are of the view that section 20 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act has to be read as a whole. The proviso appended to it has also to be given a proper meaning. The appellate authority cannot prolong the consideration of the appeal without first deciding the application in which the assessee seeks a decision under the proviso to section 20(5) of the said Act. We accordingly direct the appellate authority to decide that application before taking up the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. Till decision of that application, realisation of tax assessed against the petitioner is ordered to be stayed. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1976 (12) TMI 175
... ...
... ... ..... society. It is now well-settled by a catena of decisions that there can be no question of estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its legislative, sovereign or executive powers. The aforementioned observations apply with full vigour to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Last of all, it was submitted that because of the imposition of the tax by the Samiti during the current year for which the vends have been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-firm, the latter would suffer irreparable loss and at least for the sake of equity we should quash the impugned levy. It is settled law that equitable considerations cannot be taken into consideration by a court while interpreting a taxing statute. No other point was urged before us. For the reasons mentioned above, we see no force in these petitions and dismiss the same with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200 in each case. The costs shall be recoverable by the concerned Panchayat Samiti only. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 174
... ...
... ... ..... t. It was said that the appeals against penalty orders were filed and are pending even now. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeals were filed after the admission of the writ petitions by this court. I do not think there is any bar in the way of the petitioner. No facts require to be investigated in the proceedings. Only a point of law regarding the jurisdiction of the assessing authorities has been raised. The question of jurisdiction can appropriately be answered by this court and not by the authorities concerned. Courts of general jurisdiction can decide whether the statutory authorities have overstepped the limits of their jurisdiction. The preliminary objection is rejected. For these reasons, I would allow the writ petitions and quash the penalty notices under section 22A(1) and the consequent orders dated 2nd April, 1969, imposing penalty in all the four cases. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 173
... ...
... ... ..... tion issued by the Governor makes it clear that the goods with reference to which the levy of tax under the State Act and under the Central Act are contemplated must be identical. Once it is conceded that the raw hides and skins are commercially different from tanned hides and skins, it automatically follows that the tanned hides and skins which alone are the subject-matter of inter-State sales are not liable to any tax under item 7(b) of the Second Schedule under the State Act, since the raw hides and skins which were tanned had suffered tax under item 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the State Act and, therefore, will not come within the scope of the notification. Since, admittedly, the petitioner has not paid any tax with reference thereto under the State Act, it will not be entitled to the exemption provided for in the notification of the Governor. Under these circumstances, the petitions fail and they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 172
... ...
... ... ..... h is as follows All electrical goods, machinery, instruments, apparatus, appliances, accessories and component parts (either sold as a whole or in parts) including fans, lighting bulbs, electrical earthernwares, porcelain and all other instruments, apparatus, appliances, accessories and component parts, the use of which cannot be had except with the application of electrical energy. The result of that will be, the leakproof battery cells not falling within any one of the items in the First Schedule to the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, they will be liable to multi-point tax under the general taxing provisions of the statute. Under these circumstances, we allow the tax revision case only in respect of the turnover relating to the sale of leakproof battery cells and we hold that the said turnover is assessable at multi-point under the general taxing provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 171
... ...
... ... ..... d by them to cover their approximate tax liability, and that the rest of the bank guarantee be released to them. We think this is a reasonable request. The bank guarantee furnished will be discharged but the petitioners will within ten days after such discharge of the bank guarantee, furnish fresh bank guarantee for one-third of the amount covered by the guarantee discharged under this order. We are not directing that there should be no coercive steps against the petitioners till the Tribunal gives its decision, as indicated by us, and the other authorities before whom the assessment proceedings are pending in one form or other, follow up in the wake of the Tribunal s decision. We expect that such steps will not be precipitated till then. A declaration on the lines indicated in this paragraph will issue in favour of the petitioners and subject as above, this writ petition will stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Issue carbon copies to all counsel. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 170
... ...
... ... ..... ated in other people s minds, the court, at any rate, must be in a position to make up its mind in every case. That is because, while there may be a possibility of more than one construction being mooted of the same taxing provision, there can only be one view that can be correct. In any case, in expressing my views aforesaid, I have not been assailed by any doubts whatsoever. For the above reasons, I concur with the conclusion expressed in the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice and differ from that expressed by my learned brother, V. Ramaswami, J. In my view, the Division Bench decision in Madras Radiators and Pressings v. State of Tamil Nadu(1) is wrongly decided. By the Court KAILASAM, C.J.-In accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Full Bench, it is held that Madras Radiators and Pressings v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 37 S.T.C. 123. has been erroneously decided. In the result, the tax case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 169
... ...
... ... ..... ent, we must reject the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The second contention is the result of a confusion between the best judgment assessment provided for in section 12(2) of the Act and the determination to the best of judgment of the turnover provided for in section 16(1) of the Act. The language used in the two sections and the purpose for which the best judgment test is to be applied are different. Therefore, simply because section 16(1) uses the expression best of its judgment , it cannot be held that section 16(1) can be invoked only in a case where an element of estimate of the turnover enters into the calculation and has no application to a case where a turnover is known and definite and only the liability of the same to tax is under consideration. Therefore, we reject the second contention also. The result of this will be that these tax cases fail and they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 168
... ...
... ... ..... appeared before the assessing authority on behalf of the petitioner and had produced the books of account. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that Vasudeo had no authority to represent the petitioner cannot be accepted, even though Vasudeo had no power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner authorising the former to receive the demand notice. Moreover, the petitioner had been arrested in the year 1962 for realisation of arrears of tax. He was released by the Collector, Gorakhpur, on his (petitioner) giving an undertaking to the authorities that he would pay the tax in instalments. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to urge that the recovery proceedings are invalid on account of the demand notice having been served on Vasudeo, who, according to the petitioner, had no authority to receive the demand notice. In the result, we do not admit this petition but dismiss it. The interim order made by us on 20th October, 1976, stands vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner and its customers to the effect that the latter were bound to pay the railway freight? (v) Whether, in view of the facts of the petitioner s case, the payment of the railway freight by the customers amounted to an implied stipulation that the railway freight would be paid by the customers? The manner in which question No. (ii) has been framed shows that, admittedly railway freight is not made part of the price of the goods sold. Obviously, therefore, the sales tax authorities could not, with any justification, impose sales tax on amount spent as railway freight because sales tax is to be imposed on the price of the goods sold. The view which we have taken finds further support from a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1969 24 S.T.C. 487 (S.C.). We, accordingly, answer all the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1976 (12) TMI 166
... ...
... ... ..... terpret the meaning of the words all varieties of textiles so far as the sales tax authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh were concerned. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the circular of 8th December, 1969, would apply to all years and all assessment proceedings and for the period even prior to December, 1969. This last contention of the learned Government Pleader must, therefore, be rejected. Under these circumstances, these two revision petitions under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act are allowed and the questions of law raised in these tax revision cases are answered as follows Question No. (1) In the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the State of Andhra Pradesh. Question No. (2) In the negative. Question No. (3) Not answered in view of the discussion set out herein above. The respondent in each of these tax revision cases will pay the costs of the petitioner. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 165
Whether the appellants are the last purchasers of manganese ore within the State of Andhra Pradesh?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. It has to be found out whether the contracts between the merchants and the corporation are integrated contracts in the course of export or they are different. If they are different contracts, as they are in the present case, the last purchaser within the State is the M.M.T.C.
-
1976 (12) TMI 164
Whether sales tax is payable by a photographer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (Act 2 of 1959), when the photographer takes photographs or does other photographic work and thereafter supplies the photographic prints to his client or customer?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No cogent ground to disagree with the High Court in so far as it has decided against the revenue and has held the contract to be one for work and labour.
-
1976 (12) TMI 147
Custody of company’s property, Winding up - Powers of liquidator, Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.
-
1976 (12) TMI 138
Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... n of the scheme. I accordingly sanction the scheme. Turning now to the question of passing an order under section 394 of the Act, the report of the official liquidator is available. It states that on a scrutiny of the books of accounts and papers of the transferor-company, the official liquidator is of the view that the affairs of the company have not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members or to public interest. It has been suggested that some clause be incorporated in the scheme regarding possible income-tax or sales-tax liability. However, it has also been indicated that there do not seem to be any income-tax or sales-tax liability. The scheme as passed by the shareholders of the two companies contains some superfluous terms which have been suitably amended. A provision has also been made for possible income-tax or sales-tax liability. I have approved a draft of the formal order to be passed in Forms Nos. 41 and 42. The petition is dismissed.
-
1976 (12) TMI 137
Annual Return - General ... ... ... ... ..... f the case, it must, therefore, be held that the default continued for 182 days beginning from November 30, 1971, up to 30th of May, 1972, and on conviction for the offence under section 162(1) of the Act, each of the respondents is liable to a sentence of fine for the aforesaid period. Keeping the facts of the case in view, we think, imposition of a daily fine of rupee one for these 182 days of default for each of the respondents would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of acquittal, convict each of the respondents under section 162(1) of the Companies Act and direct that each of them shall pay a daily fine of rupee one for these 182 days of default as aforesaid, or in default respondents Nos. 2 and 3 shall suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of rupees two hundred be paid to the Registrar of Companies under section 626 of the Act for meeting the costs of the proceedings. Mohanti, J. mdash I agree.
-
1976 (12) TMI 136
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc.
-
1976 (12) TMI 116
Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet, Power and duties of auditor ... ... ... ... ..... Bank. M/s. General Superintendence Company is appointed to verify and finally check and prepare the inventory of the stock with the State Bank of Saurashtra and any other stock with the company, and the cost of verification of the stock with the State Bank of Saurashtra shall be borne by the State Bank of Saurashtra. The cost of verification and preparation of the inventory of the stock with the company other than those of which claim is laid by Dena Bank, UCO Bank and State Bank of Saurashtra should be borne by the sponsor of the scheme, viz., Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. and they must deposit through the petitioner, Velji Shamji and Company, Rs. 1,200 with the liquidator within ten days from to-day. If the directors so desire, they or their nominees may remain present when verification is undertaken by M/s. General Superintendence Company but if they failed to avail of this opportunity, their subsequent objections would be disregarded. No order as to costs of this summons.
........
|
