|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 88 Records
-
1977 (9) TMI 106
... ...
... ... ..... . This aspect has not been noticed by any of the authorities. As we have said, the facts are clear and the movement of the goods from Coimbatore to Madras-both the places are within the Tamil Nadu State-cannot constitute an inter-State movement and hence clearly the turnover of Rs. 2,47,782.01 cannot be said to be taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The turnover of Rs. 3,91,462.75 relating to the goods which crossed the Tamil Nadu border and entered Kerala and were shipped in the Cochin Port was clearly taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the light of the above, we allow the appeal in part and hold that the turnover of Rs. 3,91,462.75 relating to the goods that were transported from Coimbatore to Cochin is taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. We also hold that this is the only turnover that is taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs as the appeal has been partly lost and partly won. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 105
... ...
... ... ..... them that the export was by the State Trading Corporation and the sale was by the assessee to the State Trading Corporation and the two have no connection, on facts identical to the facts of this case. We, therefore, hold in these cases, following the Supreme Court, which we are bound to do, that there is no connection between the sales made by the respondentassessees to the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, and the export by that organisation to the importers in Colombo in Ceylon. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the Tribunal, allow these revision petitions and hold that the assessees are not entitled to claim the sales made by them to the above-mentioned Marketing Federation Ltd., as sales in the course of export. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs, the matter being one of some difficulty as far as we can see and one of fruitful experiences as far as this court is concerned. Petitions allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 104
... ...
... ... ..... 1) or what was observed in Khemka and Company v. State of Maharashtra(2) have not been borne in mind by the Tribunal. Merely because sub-section (2) of section 14 sanctions levy of penalty on the turnover that was not disclosed by the dealer, penalty cannot be imposed, unless it is found that the petitioner either acted deliberately in defiance of law, or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the department had not made any consequential enquiry to prove that the petitioner had smuggled goods or that the purchases were not local purchases, has not been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, having regard to the facts and the circumstances of this particular case, we are inclined to hold that the levy of penalty as confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, is not justified. It is, accordingly, set aside. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 103
... ...
... ... ..... the contract to which we have made reference. So read, this can only mean that all that had to be done by the assessee had been done by the assessee for and on behalf of Wilson and Co. and in pursuance of the contract that was entered into with Wilson and Co. and that it was that position that was made clear by the words by order and for account and risk . We cannot attach much significance to these words so as to whittle down the specific terms of the agreement between the parties. The Tribunal relied on the second part of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and also seems to have relied on the first part of the sub-section. No arguments were addressed before us on the first part of the sub-section and we are not inclined to go into that question. But we have no doubt that the Tribunal was right in applying the second part of the sub-section and we accordingly dismiss this tax revision case with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 102
... ...
... ... ..... e may, either of its own motion or on an application by any person interested, call for any proceeding which has been taken by the Collector or the authorised officer under this Act and may make such enquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order as it thinks fit Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section without previous notice to the party who may be affected by such order. In view of this alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner, it was contended that the writ petition would abate under article 226(3) of the Constitution, as amended by the 42nd Amendment, and section 58 of the 42nd Amendment Act. The contention is well-founded and we think that the same should also be accepted. 6.. In the result, we allow this writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that the Original Petition No. 127 of 1973 will stand dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 101
... ...
... ... ..... . The High Court of Bombay in Punjab B. and . S. Company Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 1977 39 S.T.C. 386. had expressed an identical view that merely because cloth is sold in pieces and not in the form of takas or bales manufactured by the mills, it does not cease to be manufactured cloth or cotton fabrics. Therefore, although rags and chindies are pieces of cloth of irregular shapes and sizes, it cannot be said that they are not manufactured cloth. Rags and chindies also do not cease to be manufactured cloth, merely because the purchaser put them to use as raw material for making paper or paper products... The fact that the rags in question are meant for the paper-mills makes no difference so long as they come within the meaning of cotton fabrics as defined in item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow these tax revision cases with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 100
... ...
... ... ..... ot been paid as ordered by it. In the circumstances of this case, it is obvious that the petitioner-firm has been denied a statutory right of appeal under section 20 of the Act. I accordingly allow this petition, set aside the aforementioned orders passed by the appeallate authority and remand the case to it for a fresh decision in accordance with law. I would also like to make it clear that in accordance with an earlier decision given by this Bench in Surindera Rice and General Mills, Morinda, District Rupnagar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (C.W. No. 7874 of 1976 decided on 7th December, 1976), it would be incumbent upon the appellate authority to dispose of the application under section 20(5) of the Act before deciding the appeal on merits. The petitioner-firm will also have its costs which are assessed at Rs. 300. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 10th October, 1977. SIDHU, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 99
... ...
... ... ..... thin its power to grant it any relief lesser than that. We are accordingly of the view that it was within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to order the entertainment of the appeal on payment of tax on instalment basis. The view taken by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the learned Presiding Officer of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, runs contrary to the above-quoted maxim as explained by the Supreme Court of India and cannot be allowed to prevail. We accordingly allow this petition, set aside the order dated 8th March, 1977, passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, and the order dated 4th July, 1977, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab. We further direct that the appellate authority should decide the appeal expeditiously on merits provided of course the conditions fixed by it regarding the payment of tax in instalments are fulfilled by the petitioner-firm. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 98
... ...
... ... ..... ng split or processed foodgrains as different from unsplit or unprocessed foodgrains and validating the imposition, levy and collection of tax on first purchase of split or processed foodgrains notwithstanding earlier imposition of tax on first purchase of those foodgrains in unsplit or unprocessed form. Section 7 validated earlier levies and notifications under section 3-D as amended. The Supreme Court observed that the legislature has power to impose tax, which includes within itself the power to tax retrospectively. It was further held that the fact that the retrospective levy did not afford any opportunity to the dealers to pass on the tax to the consumers had no relevance in considering the legislative competence of the levy. In view of the above proposition and in the context of the above legislation on the Excise Act, the second contention of the petitioner also fails. The rule, accordingly, fails and is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Rule discharged.
-
1977 (9) TMI 97
Shares – Power, to issue of at discount, Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Application of act to banking companies
-
1977 (9) TMI 88
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order, Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation
-
1977 (9) TMI 87
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ed to the cash credit hypothecation account and not to the bills discounting account. This question, however, is not of much relevance in this petition, because even assuming that the said amount was liable to be credited to the bills discounting account, the only result would be that the claim of the petitioners would be reduced by that amount. In spite of such reduction the major part of the claim of the petitioners would still survive. In fact, the claim still would be over rupees two lakhs, and hence the petition cannot be dismissed on that ground. As I was of the view that on the affidavits the dispute raised by the company did not appear to be bona fide, I asked Mr. Chinoy as to whether he desired to lead any evidence to support the case of the company. Mr. Chinoy frankly stated that he did not desire to lead any evidence. In the result, there will be an order in terms of prayer (a ) of the petition. The costs of the petitioners to come out of the assets of the company.
-
1977 (9) TMI 85
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... bers of the company. There does not now seem to be any dispute that no membership register is in fact found anywhere amongst the documents taken possession of by the official liquidator either from the office of the company or from the CBI, who were said to have seized the documents belonging to the company. The records of the company, according to the official liquidator, also do not disclose that any return of allotment of shares was sent to the Registrar. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to see how any relief under section 155 can be successfully claimed by the petitioner. If the petitioner has any other remedies open to him to avoid the so-called allotment, in the legality or otherwise of which it is not necessary to go in this petition, it is open to him to take recourse to those remedies. However, no relief as claimed under section 155 by the petitioners can be granted to them. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (9) TMI 65
... ...
... ... ..... ip makes a profit. Though that has a connection with the gift it does not arise as a result of the gift and the income arises only because the other partners have agreed to take her as a partner and had allowed her to contribute to the capital of the firm. Thus it was held that the income from the share of the profit in the firm arising to the individual rsquo s wife cannot, therefore, be included in the total income of the individuals under the provisions of s. 64(iii). In that case, decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mohini Thapar vs. CIT (Central), Calcutta 1972 CTR (SC) 214 (1972) 83 ITR 208 (SC) was also considered. The ration laid down in the above case is directly applicable to the instant case. Following with respect the above decision I hold that the share of profit Rs. 8,963 earned by Mrs. Nanavati from the firm of M.s Tarachand Magalal cannot be included in the total income of the assessee. Accordingly I delete Rs. 8,963. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 62
... ...
... ... ..... taken at Rs. 15,91,270.74. The ITO has pointed out that according to the Garrison Engineer rsquo s report the gross payment to the assessee were to the extent of Rs. 15,91,270.74. However, the ITO considered various other circumstances and then he took the gross receipts at Rs. 16,55,544. The ITO has not brought the circumstance to the notice of the Garrison Engineer. Under such circumstances, we hold that the ITO should bring the circumstances mentioned by him to the notice of the Garrison Engineer and after verifying from his record, he should come to a clear finding as to what is the actual gross payment made by the military authority. He will verify this fact and will decide the question on gross payment after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard. However, he will calculate the net profit at 10 per cent on the net receipt after excluding the value of the materials supplied by the Department as mentioned above. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1977 (9) TMI 61
... ...
... ... ..... sessee has submitted that the details will show that the assessee had shown the profits which the assessee earned in the sugar and rahar dal account. He has also submitted that the ITO has made the addition only on the ground that the gross profit was low and that no addition can be made on the basis of the lowness of gross profit. For this purpose he has relied on the case of M. Durai Raj vs. CIT Ernakulam 83 ITR 482 and on the case of International Forest Co. vs. CIT Patiala 1975 CTR (J and K) 88 101 ITR 721 (J and K). It cannot be doubted that no addition can be made on the basis of lowness gross profit on the whole, we find that the ITO has not given any cogent material for making the addition of Rs. 6,000 in the trading account, relating to rahar dal and sugar. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 6,000. 13. The ITO is directed to modify the assessment order of the partners of the assessee which is a registered firm. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in full.
-
1977 (9) TMI 60
... ...
... ... ..... the withdrawals from the asst. yr.s 1971-72 to the asst. yr. 1974-75 and we find that the withdrawals in the asst. yr. 1974-75 are more than the withdrawals in the earlier years. Moreover, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that both the parties are bachelors and Shri Mahendra Kumar Shah lives at his native place along with his father where his father has got a factory and the other partner Shri Anantrai Shah is living along with his brother Shri Chhotelal Maniar who is Chief Accountant of an Industrial Organisation at Dhanbad and his fooding and other expenses are met by him and the withdrawal was only for his pocket expenses. Under such circumstances we hold that no addition can be made on the basis of the withdrawals by the partners in the asst. yrs 1974-75. 6. In view of our discussion above we hold that the addition of Rs. 14,480 as sustained by the AAC was not justified. We, therefore, delete the addition. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in full.
-
1977 (9) TMI 54
... ...
... ... ..... th Feb., 1970, provision was made to save from the operation of s. 45 the gains arising from the transfer of agricultural lands effected before 1st March, 1970. It is thus obvious that the above clause refers only to agricultural lands covered by sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iii) of s. 2(14). There was no need for making a similar provision in respect of agricultural lands falling under sub-cl. (b) of cl. (iii) of s. 2(14) because they would become capital assets only if and when a notification was issued by the Central Government. 13. For the above reasons we hold that the property, excepting the building Sankara Vijayam sold by the assessee under the sale deed dt. 15th June, 1972 was not a capital asset within the meaning of the said expression as defined in s. 2(14) of the IT Act, 1961 on the date of sale and consequently gains arising therefrom is not liable to be taxed under s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961. 14. In the result the orders of the CIT are cancelled. The appeals are allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 52
... ...
... ... ..... and not to sell any chattel as envisaged by the lower authorities. The documentary supports made available show that supply and erection of conveyors was completed and handed over to Aurofood Limited by Nov., 1975. The appellants thus erected and commissioned a conveyor system for M/s. Auro Food Limited as a contract of work. The civil nature of the work including engineering work was done by the appellants. The materials, documentary supports available before us etc. Sufficiently disclose the intention of the parties to perform a contract of work. We, therefore, find sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel to the effect that the stand contract involved a contract of work. Such works contracts cannot consequently be brought within the scope of assessment. 12. Resultantly, we find that the disputed turnover relates to work contracts rsquo . They are consequently not liable to be assessed at the hands of the appellants. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1977 (9) TMI 50
... ...
... ... ..... have his case re-assessed and also paid tax even before the re-assessment, there is good reason to hold that there was no dishonest intention. Learned counsel for the CST argued that there was no question of any confusion in regard to tax liability in supply of ballast, and appellant obviously came forward for the re-assessment because the ITO had already taken this supply into consideration for the assessment of the dealer. But this argument appears to be far-fetched. It is true that the ITO had taken income of the business in ballast into consideration. But this income can also be derived from job work and in any case, there is no doubt that the assessing authority initiated the proceedings only after an application was made by the dealer and tax had been deposited by him. The circumstances of the case are, therefore, clearly such as would not call for imposition of penalty under s. 19(1) of the Act. 4. The appeal is allowed. Penalty under s. 19(1) of the Act is set aside.
|
