|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 92 Records
-
1977 (2) TMI 119 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an order of assessment. It is also unnecessary to decide whether an order of assessment includes an order of rectification. Section 21(3) covers all orders made in relation to an order of assessment . It is, therefore, sufficient if we hold that the order revised by the Deputy Commissioner related to the order of assessment, since it is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner has revisional power in respect of such order. 6.. The order revised by the Deputy Commissioner was a rectification order made under rule 38, as it then stood. By that order, the original order of assessment has undergone a change and the tax liability of the assessee has been reduced and, consequently, refund was ordered. It was, therefore, evidently an order in relation to the order of assessment and falls squarely within the revisional power under section 21(2). 7.. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed. But, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner of Sales Tax in revision, it has been clearly stated that these packing labels were actually printed wrappers and it is with this in mind that the Assistant Commissioner determined that this item was to be retained in the recognition certificate of the Parle Products. Moreover, even the Sales Tax Officer, who has disallowed the claim of the applicants for deduction has referred to this item as labels sold to the Parle Products. In view of this, in our view, it is not open to Mr. Sanghvi to raise this contention at all. In the result, we answer the second question referred to us in the negative. As far as the first question is concerned, for the reasons which we have already given in connection with the second question, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have determined this question at all and it is unnecessary for us to determine the same. The respondent to pay to the applicants the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 300. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1977 (2) TMI 117 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... no objection had been raised at earlier stages to the invalidity of the service of the notice, the assessees could be said to have waived that objection. So far as this particular reference is concerned, we find on the facts that the said Merchant was not an agent as contemplated by rule 47 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, that the service upon him of the said notice under section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, did not amount to a valid service in law and, therefore, the said Sales Tax Officer acquired no jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings against the applicant-firm. We accordingly answer questions Nos. (2) and (3) in the negative. So far as questions Nos. (1) and (4) are concerned, in view of our answer to questions Nos. (2) and (3), we find it unnecessary to determine those questions or to give any answers to them. The respondent will pay to the applicants the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 300. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1977 (2) TMI 116 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of revenue, the appropriate reasons or the justification should at least appear from the reasons as recorded. The reasons as recorded in this case cannot serve that purpose. The rule is thus made absolute only on the limited ground as aforesaid and other grounds as argued and as noted hereinbefore are overruled, so also the preliminary point as argued by Mr. Dutta. There will however be no order for costs. Let appropriate writs be issued directing the respondents and each one of them to quash and not to give effect to the impugned notice or order in annexure B or to act on the basis thereof. This will not however prejudice the respondents from proceeding afresh and in accordance with law in the matter, after duly complying with the requirements of section 7(4a)(i) of the said Act and, that too, after due recording of reasons. Stay of operation of the order as prayed for is refused. All interim orders are vacated and the security as deposited is released. Ordered accordingly.
-
1977 (2) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the shutters passed at the time when the assessees took delivery of the same ex factory. We may also point out that both these cases, viz., State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. 1969 24 S.T.C. 349 (S.C.). and State of Rajasthan v. Nenu Ram 1970 26 S.T.C. 268 (S.C.)., have been distinguished by the Supreme Court in T.V. Sundram Iyengar and Sons v. State of Madras 1975 35 S.T.C. 24 (S.C.)., to which we have already referred and for the reasons which we have set out earlier. In our view, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the contract between the assessees and Shah and Company was a divisible contract which essentially consisted of two contracts, one for the supply of the shutters of the aforesaid two types for money and the other for service and labour. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. The assessees to pay to the respondent the costs of this reference fixed at Rs. 300. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1977 (2) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the opinion that, in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, the said decision is not of any assistance whatever to the respondent-assessee to support the order of the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we allow the tax revision petition and set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. At the same time, since we have held that the turnover relating to the sale of M. S. rounds will be entitled to exemption from tax because the M. S. rounds sold and the M. S. rounds purchased out of which the M. S. rounds sold came, constituted the same commodity, the matter will have to go back to the Tribunal for the purpose of separating the turnover relating to the sale of M.S. rounds from the turnover relating to the sale of M. S. angles and M. S. squares and for giving exemption from tax in respect of the turnover relating to M. S. rounds only. The tax revision petition is allowed, as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 113 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Supreme Court decision in Hyderabad Asbestos case 1969 24 S.T.C. 487 (S.C.). with the following observations 5. In the instant case, the facts are distinguishable. Under the Cement Control Order, the price fixed is f.o.r. and, therefore, there is an obligation on the seller to pay the freight. It is a matter of arrangement between the parties that instead of the seller in the first instance paying the freight and despatching the goods, the purchaser at the receiving end pays the freight on behalf of the vendor and takes delivery. When the price is fixed by a statutory order and that price is inclusive of freight, it cannot be predicated as to what percentage of that price constitutes the freight and, in that view, it cannot be contended that the turnover of the goods is the price fixed by the Cement Control Order less the freight.......... For the reasons stated, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Appeal dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 112 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee and, therefore, the assessee cannot be placed in a worse position than what he would have been if he had not preferred the appeal, by modifying the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the prejudice of the assessee. On this very short ground, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Government dated 6th December, 1971, is set aside, so far as it purported to modify the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. As we have pointed out already, the Government did have the power to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but did not have the power to modify the said order in the manner it did. The result of our allowing the appeal in this manner and setting aside the order of the Government partially will be to restore the order of the assessing authority dated 28th January, 1971. There will be no order as to costs. The fee of the Government Pleader, Pondicherry, is fixed at Rs. 200 (Rs. Two hundred only) for this case. Appeal allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 111 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Officer 1971 28 S.T.C. 492 1971 1 Mys. L.J. 72. But, that case related to the unamended section 13(3)(b). The language notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was not there before 1972. That is why, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the Magistrate issuing the warrant of distress could not ask for recovery of an amount exceeding his own power to levy fine. The above-noted language used in sub-section (3)(b) rather makes the position clear. The limit imposed by the legislature on the levy of fine will no longer hold good and the Magistrate would realise the amount as if it were a fine imposed by him notwithstanding that the amount to be recovered is much more than the fine which could be imposed by him. 6.. In this view of the matter, I do not find any defect in the order made by the learned Magistrate. As such, no revision is sustainable against that order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his order, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has categorically stated It is further to be remembered that the goods are returned under the original contract of sale..... Thus, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has accepted the position that the return of goods was in accordance with the terms of the contract between the applicants and the said George Salter India Limited. He, however, none the less went on to treat this return of goods as sales because they were not returned within the period of one year mentioned in rule 4 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. For the reasons set out above, we answer the question submitted to us in both these references in the negative. As the arguments in both these references were common, we direct the respondents to pay to the applicants the costs of both these references fixed in all at Rs. 300. The fee of Rs. 100 paid by the applicants in each of these references will be refunded to them. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1977 (2) TMI 109 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... partner could not be attached, as there was no provision in the Sales Tax Act giving a right to that attachment. Similar is the provision in the present case. The order of the learned Magistrate cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the personal assets belonging to the petitioner-partners are liable for payment of tax. In this view of the matter, the order made by the learned Magistrate need be clarified. The warrant issued to the Deputy Commissioner, North Kanara, Karwar, to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, shall not enable the said authority to recover the amount from the personal assets of the partners including the petitioners. The said warrant shall, of course, be executable against them in so far as the assets of the firm may be found in their possession. With this clarification made in the order of the learned Magistrate, these three petitions are dismissed. A copy of this order shall be kept in the other connected two petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 108 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ption of the legal position and their non-compliance led to the search and seizure of the books of account and documents which were warranted by law. We understand that the books of account and documents seized had been since returned to the petitioner pursuant to the order of Pal, J., and, accordingly, we do not express any opinion as to the question of retention of documents over the statutory period. As all the contentions raised fail, the Appeal from Original Order No. 726 of 1973, State of West Bengal and Others v. A. S. Narayana (Appellate Side), is allowed, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the rule is discharged. All interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal No.109 of 1972, S.M. Zaki and Another v. Investigating Officer, Bureau of Investigation, and Others (Original Side), is dismissed and all interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C. J.-I agree. Ordered accordingly.
-
1977 (2) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... while confirming the assessability of the turnover with reference to the period subsequent to the amendment, held that the turnover with reference to the earlier period would not be liable to tax. In this view, the decision of the Tribunal that these two items of turnover are not liable to be taxed is correct. As far as the grant of rebate is concerned, the same findings which have been considered by us with reference to the assessments under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act have been given here. For the same reasons as given by us with regard to the assessments under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and having regard to the definition of the term sale price as defined in section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the deduction given by the Tribunal is proper. The result is T.C. No. 89 of 1974 fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in any of these tax revision cases. T.C. Nos. 87 and 88 of 1974 partly allowed. T.C. No. 89 of 1974 dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te has made to the Tribunal. The only expression that will be of any consequence is the word enhance . For the word enhance to apply, there must be something to be increased. In this case, since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has set aside the very order of penalty, there was no penalty to be increased. To enhance the penalty already imposed is different from restoring the penalty which was imposed by the original authority but set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner since the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal is the order of the appellate authority only and not the order of the original authority. Consequently, an application for restoration of the penalty in the present case will not come within the scope of section 36(3)(a)(i) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in not restoring the order of penalty though the reasons given by the Tribunal for doing so are different. Hence the tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 105 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce on record to show that the respondent was in a position to clear off the taxes and that he had other means, besides the attached property, to pay the tax dues. On the other hand, the respondent, in his written argument submitted before the trial Magistrate, pointed out that these assessments have been made after the respondent has been financially ruined, having suffered heavy losses. The loss during the Diwali years 1958, 1959 and 1960 was Rs. 2. lacs and in support thereof he had filed certified copy of one income-tax order for the Diwali year 1960. So Instead of rushing to prosecute the respondent in these cases, the sales tax authorities should have proceeded with recovery of taxes by sale of the attached property. The view taken by the learned trial Magistrate is quite reasonable and even if another view is possible that cannot be a ground for interference in these appeals against acquittal. 6.. The appeals, therefore, fail and they are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a dissolved firm can be assessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution transactions?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, it can be assessed to sales tax in respect of its pre-dissolution transactions.
-
1977 (2) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... e years 1970, 1971 and 1972 or the annual reports which entailed commencement of prosecution under the provisions of the Companies Act. None of the directors of the company or the company responded to the various notices given. This indicates that the company is unable to carry on its business and it will be in the interest of justice that such a company is ordered to be wound up. The existence and continuance of such a company is not in the public interest. I am satisfied from the material on record that the respondent-company has become financially unsound and is unable to carry on its business and has thus become liable to be wound up. I, therefore, allow the application and direct that the respondent-company, Messrs. KT. Financiers Private Ltd., Lucknow, be wound up. The official liquidator attached to this court shall be the liquidator of the company and he should immediately take steps to take in his possession the various assets of the company and its books of account.
-
1977 (2) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... nt did not object to the violation of the procedure provided in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then he is not estopped from taking this objection in appeal. As the statement and affidavit of the appellant do not amount to admission, there is complete lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove the requirements of section 454(5) of the Act. Even the official liquidator did not take a stand in the witness box to state the circumstances which had led him to file the complaint because of the failure of the appellant, in his capacity as managing director of the company, to submit the statement of affairs of the company within the period provided by the statute. There is not an iota of evidence on the file to prove the absence of reasonable excuse on the part of the appellant. With these observations we feel our inability to uphold the judgment of the learned single judge. The order of conviction is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
-
1977 (2) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT
Dismissal of application for stay of proceedings under section 442(b) of the Act
Held that:- In the case before us, the only right which could be said to have been created is the right to get speedier adjudication from the court where the winding-up proceeding is taking place. That is the object of the provisions. On facts disclosed in this case, we find that the application seems to have been made with the object of delaying decisions on claims made. In such a case, there could be no doubt that the application should be rejected outright as the learned company judge did.
An attempt was made to urge that as the power to grant or not to grant or to grant a stay upon certain conditions, assuming the power to be discretionary, is to be exercised by the courts in which that discretion is vested, this court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Division Bench to which an appeal from the order of the company judge lay. A question of general principle arises in this case which has to be clarified so that an interference by this court under article 136 of the Constitution, in order to vindicate a correct principle and to meet the ends of justice, is called for.
despite the fact that an order staying proceedings under section 442(b) of the Act may not, strictly speaking, be final, yet a question of general principle of wide application, as to the circumstances in which an apparently discretionary power may become annexed with a duty to exercise it in a particular way, having arisen here, we consider this to be a fit case for interference under article 136 of the Constitution. Appeal allowed.
-
1977 (2) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Indian currency constituting the sale proceeds of foreign exchange seized from the respondent was currency in respect of which the contravention had taken place?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The intention of the legislature is clear from the Explanation to sub-section (IB) of section 23 which provides that "for the purposes of the sub-section, property in respect of which contravention has taken place shall include deposits in a bank, where such property is converted into such deposits". If for this sub-section any property in respect of which a contravention has taken place includes deposits into which the property may be converted and can be reached even where the deposits are in a bank, it is not reasonable to think that the sale proceeds in Indian currency of any foreign exchange would be outside the scope of section 23(1B) and, therefore, not liable to be confiscated. In our opinion, the High Court was wrong in quashing the order of confiscation which we consider valid and lawful.
|
