|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 172 Records
-
1980 (8) TMI 196 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee or not. Therefore both these questions, i.e., the rejection of accounts and the estimate of taxable turnover have to be gone in to afresh on the basis of the material on record. In the result, therefore, all these revisions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside to the extent noted above. So far as the revisional order made in regard to the assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned the Additional Judge (Revisions) would decide the question as to in respect of which one of the two bills covered by the declaration in dispute the assessee was entitled to get the benefit of the declaration under rule 8(1-C) of the Uttar Pradesh Central Sales Tax Rules. So far as the assessment made under the U.P. Sales Tax Act is concerned the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) would decide the question of rejection of accounts and determination of the quantum of taxable turnover afresh according to law. No order is made as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 195 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Mohinder Singh v. Baldev Kaur F.A.O. No. 79 of 1980 decided on 9th April, 1980 (P and H) . That being the position, the Tribunal had jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 20(4) of the Act, as it then stood, to condone the delay if the Tribunal was satisfied for the reasons to be recorded. As already observed, the Tribunal did not go into this question at all, holding that it had no power to condone the delay in filing the second appeals. In this view of the matter, holding that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, we send the case back to the Tribunal to consider the case of the assessee under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act, as it then stood, before the amendment was effected by the Punjab General Sales Tax (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. We order accordingly. No costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 194 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... de gold ornaments jewellery. To follow the rule in State of Orissa v. Jamula Srirangam 1961 12 STC 135 to interpret serial No. 22 would certainly be not proper. 4.. We accept the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee and hold that under serial No. 22 imitation stone is not covered and gold ornaments when studded with imitation stone would not become jewellery within the meaning of the serial. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the negative, namely The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was not correct in holding that the sales turnover of gold ornaments studded with imitation stones were jewellery exigible to tax at the rate prescribed in serial No. 22 of the schedule of luxury goods. As already pointed out, so far as artificial precious stones are concerned, the assessee s counsel conceded that gold ornaments studded with artificial precious stones would be jewellery. There would be no order for costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1980 (8) TMI 193 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t disputed that the goods moved by train from some place in Mayurbhanj to Bombay. judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the goods must have gone out of the State before the new provision came into the statute book. In the circumstances we are inclined to hold that for the transaction in question declaration under section 6A was not necessary and without the declaration the assessee was entitled on the basis of its accounts to prove that the goods had so moved. Merely on account of non-production of the declaration by the assessee, the turnover of the goods sent to its commission agent could not have been assessed to tax. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in favour of the assessee, and we state that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act was not applicable, and the assessee s claim could not be rejected for non-production of the declaration in form F. No costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 192 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Law is settled beyond dispute that burden lies on the party who alleges that a business of the individual coparcener belongs to the H.U.F. to establish it. The Tribunal clearly went wrong in placing the burden on the assessee. It would have been appropriate to look for evidence from the side of the department in support of the stand that the present business also belonged to the H.U.F. Apparently, it is the business of an individual coparcener. The certificate of registration is to that effect. There is no material at all to support the stand that the pre-existing H.U.F. is also the proprietor of the present business-a premise on which section 4(5) of the Act becomes applicable. We would accordingly answer the question by saying In the facts of the case, the Tribunal has gone wrong in placing the burden on the assessee to establish that the business in question was separate business of his. There would be no order for costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 191 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s powdered. Amendment of section 9 by inserting sub-section (3A) introduced a period of limitation as assessment and determination must be completed within 48 months from the end of the accounting year. In view of what has been stated above I am of the view that the notice of assessment is not warranted by law. Taking into consideration that all the necessary materials were before the authorities who had completed the assessments and on the face of such materials the respondents decided not to tax the petitioners of such materials the respondents had assessed and imposed taxes on the petitioner which have been complied with. Hence the respondent cannot review their own assessments after 12 years on the same materials which were placed before the assessing authority when they held that the petitioners were not liable to pay any tax thereon. It would amount to miscarriage of justice if the respondents were permitted to do so. Hence I make the rule absolute. Rule made absolute.
-
1980 (8) TMI 190 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Forest Utilisation Officer and the railway administration. The purchase was made following a preexisting contract and it envisaged transport of the sleepers from Rourkela into Bihar. For these reasons we would hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the sales between the assessee and the Forest Utilisation Officer were exigible to sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. On the other hand, the claim of the assessee that these constituted sales taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act was correct. 4.. Our answer to the questions referred, therefore, shall be (1) There was a contract for supply of sleepers between the petitioner and the Government of India in the Ministry of Railways through the agency of the Government of Bihar. (2) The transactions between the petitioner and the Government of Bihar constituted inter-State sales. The assessee shall have his costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred. The reference fees be refunded. DAS, J.-I agree.
-
1980 (8) TMI 189 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petition had been preferred or presented by a dealer, in view of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act. In the said case the only question which arose for consideration was whether proceedings could be taken for recovering the tax admitted in the returns filed by an assessee even before an order of assessment was made. The court held that action could be taken for recovery of the tax even before an assessment order was made. The question whether during the pendency of an appeal and in the absence of any interim direction by the appellate authority, proceedings for recovery could be instituted or continued under clause (b) of section 13(3) of the Act, was not directly in issue. Therefore, the said observation cannot be taken as an authority in support of the contention urged for the petitioner. 9.. For the reasons aforesaid, we reject the contention urged for the petitioner and make the following order The revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 188 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... agent and not as a turnover of himself as has been explained in the case of Veerabhadrappa(1). But, even taking the statement of the petitioner that the total turnover amounted only to about Rs. 6.6 lakhs, a liability to pay additional tax under section 6-B did not arise. Until the close of the accounting year and until an assessment was made, it could not be predicated that the turnover exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. In these circumstances, the demand made is clearly untenable. 5.. In the counter-affidavit filed, the only ground taken is that the writ petition is not maintainable. But, it is clear that the demand is patently unwarranted on the provisions of the Act. There was no assessment as such and it cannot be said that there was any right of appeal to the petitioner merely on the notice of demand. 6.. Accordingly, the rule nisi is made absolute and the notice of demand, exhibit E, is quashed. Writ shall issue to the respondent not to enforce the said demand. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 187 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onuts to other dealers was not disbelieved by the Deputy Commissioner. He merely proceeded on the footing that as the sales were not made to registered dealers and there was no evidence to show that the goods suffered tax, the assessee must be deemed to be the last purchaser. As, the Deputy Commissioner was wrong in this view and as the Deputy Commissioner did not find that the sales were not true or genuine, there was no occasion for the Appellate Tribunal to remand the matter for further enquiry as to whether the sales were in fact effected to other dealers as contended by the assessee. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal should have allowed the appeal and was wrong in remanding the case for further enquiry. Hence T.R.C. No. 58 of 1977 is allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside. Having regard to our decision in T.R.C. No. 58 of 1977, T.R.C. No. 59 of 1977 is also allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 186 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntral Sales Tax Act, 1956, as already observed by us, is not warranted by law. The decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain 1978 41 S.T.C. 484., to the extent to which it lays down that the principles of natural justice would be inapplicable when an assessing authority proceeds to reject the declaration form submitted by a dealer under section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, does not, in our opinion, lay down correct law. 8.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question reframed by us as aforesaid is that the assessing authority was required to give opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect noticed in the declaration form furnished by the assessee under section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting these declarations. The answer is thus in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 185 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... whether the material produced by the assessee was or was not sufficient for curing the defects in the C forms, was a matter for consideration of the Board and hence the Board was, in our opinion, competent to hold that the C forms should be accepted and assessment be made afresh on that basis. 5.. For all these reasons, our answer to the first question referred to this Court is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner was not right in refusing to accept the secondary evidence to remove the defects in the C forms produced by the assessee. Our answer to the second question referred to us is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue had the competence to direct the acceptance of the C forms. Both the questions are thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 184 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f second appeal is debarred from doing so. It hardly needs emphasising that an appeal under normal circumstances and second appeal within the bounds of the statute creating it, constitutes a rehearing of the cause and the appellate courts can exercise all the powers which vest in the trial court. We are, therefore, of the view that even if the question of limitation was not raised by the assessee either before the Assessing Authority or before the first appellate court, it was entitled to raise the same for the first time before the learned Sales Tax Tribunal. The learned Tribunal while declining to entertain this objection committed an error of jurisdiction. We, therefore, answer the second question also in the negative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The case shall now go back to the Tribunal for decision in the light of the opinion given by us. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. DHILLON, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1980 (8) TMI 183 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded the case to the authorities for determining whether the goods are electrical goods in the above sense. The Tribunal was obviously in error in holding that all electronic goods are electrical goods. Even if any, or all, of these goods fall within or covered by item 37-electrical goods, a further question may arise, viz., whether they are covered by any of the specific items mentioned in item 3 or item 12. The assessee is also contending that some of the goods do not fall under any of the items. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the cases to the Commercial Tax Officer with a direction to consider with reference to each item as to whether it falls under electrical goods-item 37, or item 3 or item 12, or whether they are not covered by any of the items as contended by the assessee, in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. All the three T.R.Cs. are allowed. No order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 182 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dealer in order to be entitled to the concessional rate has to produce such a declaration and once he produces such a declaration, he should be entitled to the concessional rate. Merely because the purchaser subsequently misapplies or misuses the goods for the purpose other than for which it had been intended, the seller cannot be deprived of the concession he has been granted by virtue of the provisions of section 5(3-A). In such a contingency, the legislature has made specific provision under section 5(3-B). The purchaser can be penalised in accordance with that provision. There is no provision in the Act to the effect if the purchaser misuses the goods, the seller should be deprived of the concessional rate. Therefore, the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in this behalf also, is not warranted by law. In the result, the rule issued is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. The notice exhibit A is hereby quashed. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1980 (8) TMI 181 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tax, Nagpur 1963 14 S.T.C. 976 (S.C.). In that case it was held that once a proper notice for reassessment was issued within five years, the reassessment proceedings will be completed any time thereafter. We, therefore, answer the second question also against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The two questions referred to us in G.S.T.R. No. 2 of 1975 relating to the assessment year 1964-65 are similarly worded. They are also answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. G.S.T.R. No. 3 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1965-66 and G.S.T.R. No. 4 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1966-67. In these two references only the first question relating to the jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer has been referred to us. This question is accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The aforesaid four petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. DHILLON, J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 180 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,800 imposed under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, when the tax levied on red chillies was upheld? The Board of Revenue failed to decide the reference petition within the stipulated period of limitation. Hence this application under section 15(3A) of the Act. When two learned members of the Board of Revenue deciding the case differed with each other on the point of levy of tax on red chillies, it cannot be said that the assessee had a mens rea in not paying the tax in time. The bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that a particular item is not taxable in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be doubted. In our considered opinion no question of law arises which needs to be answered by this Court. The application for calling a statement of case and for directing to refer a question of law for the opinion of this Court is refused. Application for reference refused.
-
1980 (8) TMI 179 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see s counsel fairly concedes that the questions now raised were directly in issue in the case of Shantilal Kalidas v. State of Orissa 1978 42 S.T.C. 9 (1977) 43 C.L.T. 555., where after hearing the parties this Court has come to hold that glass bangles are covered by entry No. 38 of the list of taxable goods. For the reasons given in the said decision with which we agree, we hold in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and answer the first question by saying that the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was right in holding that glass bangles were not unclassified goods and were covered by entry No. 38. The second question need not be answered. There will be no order for costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 178 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r penalty which would extend to one and a half times the tax payable during any month or for the entire year in the aggregate. Of course, before levying a penalty, the authority concerned has to give a reasonable opportunity to the dealer to show cause against such imposition of a penalty. Sub-rule (2) of rule 17 authorises the authority to make a demand if the amount paid falls short of the amount payable on the basis of the statement filed and not in any other case. In a case where the dealer files a statement under section 12-B(1) of the Act admitting no liability to pay the tax, the Commercial Tax Officer would have to wait till the end of the year and to take action in accordance with section 12-B(2). The notice of demand issued by the Commercial Tax Officer in the instant case before the final assessment is not warranted bylaw and accordingly liable to be quashed. 4.. The rule is made absolute and the notice of demand (exhibit B) is hereby quashed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1980 (8) TMI 177 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Orissa Act. It is stated by the counsel for both sides that there is no other precedent on the question. The only other case we have come across is another single judge decision of the Madras High Court in P.K. Adimoolam Chettiar, In re 1957 8 S.T.C. 741., where Mariyala Venkateswara Rao, In re 1951 2 S.T.C. 167., has been referred to. But the question arising in this case was not examined. We are inclined to think that the view expressed by the learned single Judge correctly states the legal position and the inspecting officer of the department was, therefore, not entitled to verify the cash position with reference to the cash available in the box. The first question, therefore, has to be answered in favour of the assessee. The second question need not be answered as the Tribunal while giving effect to the advice given by us in terms of section 24(5) of the Act will deal with that aspect. There would be no order for costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
........
|
