|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 148 Records
-
1982 (10) TMI 204 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... excise duty and it forms the taxable turnover, then undoubtedly item 26(b) applies to the facts of this case and not item 26(a). We have already held above that the excise duty is part of the consideration from the sale of the liquor in favour of M/s. Hyderabad Beer and Wine Stores by the petitioner and therefore the taxable turnover must include the excise duty component even though it may not have been shown as such in the bills and the accounts of the petitioner. In that view of the matter this contention also fails. In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are unable to certify that this case involves such a substantial question of law of general importance as requires consideration by the Supreme Court or that it is otherwise a fit case for grant of leave. Leave refused.
-
1982 (10) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnment Pleader urges that there could have been no handling charges at all at the rate of Rs. 50 for each refrigerator and Rs. 180 as labour charges for each air-conditioner, since the business places of the assessee and the purchaser were in one and the same building. We do not think that it is given to the taxing authority to pass any moral judgment as to the propriety of awarding handling and labour charges with reference to any transactions on the ground that there was little labour involved in the process. These charges are a matter entirely within the subject of contractual understanding between the dealer and the customer concerned and if the charges were actually paid for and shown separately, the provisions of rule 6(c) should be inexorably applied to such transactions. The assessing authority and the State Government cannot, by merely protesting against the exhorbitance of those charges, seek to deny exemption under Rule 6(c). The revision is accordingly dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 202 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ject this submission. All that we need to state is that subsection (6), in unmistakable terms, creates liability to pay tax where a person would otherwise be not liable to pay tax under the other provisions of the local Act, provided, of course, the conditions laid down in the sub-section are satisfied which, as earlier pointed out, are, in fact, satisfied in the instant case. In view of the foregoing discussion, the third question requires to be answered in the affirmative. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1) In the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. (2) In the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. (3) In the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it appears to be just and proper to direct that each party shall bear its own costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 201 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng with 30th June, 1968, which was payable by the petitioner was Rs. 45,657. Towards this amount which was due from the petitioner, he had paid Rs. 20,655.93. Therefore, in the present case only a part-payment of the tax had been made and obviously the provisions of section 36(3A) cannot be attracted. Respondent No. 1 was not right in holding that even if a part-payment was made towards the tax in respect of a quarter, the provisions of section 36(3A) would apply. It is on this misinterpretation of section 36(3A), that respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order imposing penalty. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and must be set aside. We, therefore, set aside order No. SAHA-1/KAYADA/72-73/JA-9734-38 dated 21st September, 1972, passed by respondent No. 1 requiring the present petitioner to pay penalty of Rs. 14,287.50. Rule issued on the petitioner is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition.
-
1982 (10) TMI 200 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er. The mere fact that the dealer may recover sales tax from its customers has no relevance to the levy of the tax or collection thereof. The customers may or may not be entitled to claim back the sales tax paid by them and the dealer may or may not be liable to pay back the customers but it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to raise this plea. In law respondents cannot retain something which is not theirs and which they are bound to refund under the provisions of the Act. Indeed not paying back would amount to depriving the petitioner of its property without due process of law. That would be unconstitutional. One may refer to article 265 of the Constitution in this regard. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 80,324 forthwith. If the petitioner is entitled to any interest in accordance with law the same is also to be paid to the petitioner. We make the rule absolute. The petitioner would be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 550.
-
1982 (10) TMI 199 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner refunds to its customers or not and whether those customers claim refund from the petitioner or not is not an aspect which comes-into consideration in making payments of amounts found to be deposited in excess by virtue of proper assessment orders. We have already taken this view in (C.W. No. 979 of 1982) Claridges Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer 1983 53 STC 83 by our judgment dated 4th October, 1982. We reiterate the same. Accordingly we make the rule absolute and direct refund as prayed forthwith. The petitioners would be entitled to interest in accordance with law. The petitioners are also entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 550.
-
1982 (10) TMI 198 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, for his conclusion, particularly when the law has been so clearly stated in the two cases referred to above. The reasoning given by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, that the assessee had not appealed, and therefore, the question could not be considered was without any foundation as conceded by the learned standing counsel. The assessee had succeeded in getting the relief claimed and had also filed a memorandum of cross-objection to the appeal of the State. This reasoning should not have been advanced by the State nor should it have been accepted by the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal. 4.. We would accordingly answer the question referred to us by saying that the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was not justified in holding that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax had no power to accept the declarations without assigning reasons for such acceptance. There would be no order for costs. PATNAIK, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (10) TMI 197 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessed cannot be resorted to unless the demand notice therefor has been served upon the assessee in accordance with law. In this view the petitioners are, in our opinion, entitled to the relief prayed for in so far as recovery proceedings are concerned. Before parting with the case, we may also observe that there is some dispute before us with regard to the service of the assessment order on the petitioners. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on that controversy at this stage. Needless to say that when the department further proceeds to recover the money from the petitioners, it will see to it that no lacuna on this account remains and that it will proceed only in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 45 of the Sales Tax Rules. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The proceedings for recovery of the tax in pursuance of the recovery certificate (annexure 2 to the writ petition) are quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 196 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection lays down that where it is found that a change has occurred in the constitution of the firm or association, the firm or association as reconstituted as well as partners or members of the firm or association, as it existed before reconstitution, shall jointly and severally be liable to pay any tax including penalty, if any, due from such firm or association for any period before its reconstitution. This provision enables the sales tax department to proceed to recover sales tax dues of the family firm M/s. Jhansi Kirana Stores from the firm M/s. Laxmi Kirana Company and the members of the defaulting family firm. It appears that an objection was made before the Sales Tax Officer by the petitioners against the recovery proceedings. If the petitioners are so advised, they may pursue the matter. The Sales Tax Officer shall decide the objection after giving an opportunity to the petitioners in accordance with law. With these observations the petition is dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 195 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contradictions in term. A certificate of registration can be granted only when the dealer, apart from being a businessman, satisfies the other requirements prescribed by law. A registration certificate cannot be granted to a non-existent person. The fact that there have been some persons who are labelled by the department as fictitious dealers goes to show that the officers under the Act either collude with dishonest people in the field or fail to exercise due diligence and allow fraud to be practised in the commercial field. Whether it is collusion or negligence, these officers bring disrepute to the State and introduce uncertainty and lack of confidence into a true field of trust. It is high time that the State Government institutes appropriate enquiries, take such steps as are necessary to eliminate fictitious dealers from the field and also take strong action against persons connected with such matters so that there be no recurrence of it in future. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (10) TMI 194 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 39 of the Act. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the revision became final. In the circumstances, a second revision at the instance of another partner of the firm was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief in this petition. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. The petitioner in the petition did not disclose the fact that Ishwarlal filed a revision against the order passed by respondent No. 3 which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. This was a material fact which ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 6.. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this petition fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
-
1982 (10) TMI 193 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... introduced a different foundation and the basis upon which this Court had taken its view is no more sustainable. It is a fact that writ applications have been filed challenging the vires of the amending Act, but in reference jurisdiction as settled by the Supreme Court, it is not open for us to go into the question of vires. On the law as it stands with the amendment, both the questions must be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 3.. Mr. Agarwala says that he intends to file a writ application and challenge the vires of the amending Act. It is open to him to do so and in case the ultimate decision is that the amending provision is ultra vires, it would follow that the ratio of the Full Bench decision referred to above would be restored and the assessee would have his way. 4.. Our answer on the law as existing would, therefore, be in favour of the revenue subject to what we have indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1982 (10) TMI 192 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion will have to be regarded as a sale or purchase , as the case may be, in the course of an inter-State trade. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the purchase of goods made by the applicantcompany at the public auction held by the Western Railway on 13th March, 1973, must be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade, and that in view of section 3(a) of the Central Act it was not exigible to purchase tax under the Act on the footing that it was a local purchase. The first question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the applicantcompany and against the revenue. Here italicised. As pointed out earlier, in view of the decision on question No. (1), it is not necessary to answer the other questions. As regards costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it appears to be just to direct that each party in the two references shall bear its own costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 191 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Compromise and arrangement, Winding up – Circumstances in which a company may be would up, Powers of tribunal on hearing petition,
-
1982 (10) TMI 190 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Restrictions on dealings in foreign exchange, Presumption as to documents ... ... ... ... ..... lance-sheet can well be explained on the hypothesis of barter trade. That this defence was not taken by the accused will not make any difference. The burden of proof lay on the Enforcement. It was for the Director of Enforcement who took the proceedings against the appellants to establish that that there were transactions of lending and borrowing between Reliable Traders and Bhatia Brothers and that there was contravention of section 4(1) beyond any shadow of doubt. The hypothesis of barter trade is compatible with the innocence of the accused. This demonstrates the sweeping nature of the generalisations of the Appellate Board. For these reasons, I accept all the four appeals and set aside the orders of the Additional Director of Enforcement dated September 20, 1977, and the Appellate Board dated May 16, 1980. The parties are left to bear their own costs. At the conclusion of the hearing on September 21, 1982, I announced this order. Now, I have given my reasons for doing so.
-
1982 (10) TMI 189 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Company – Membership of, Shares – Power, to issue of at discount ... ... ... ... ..... . The sale is not done in a secret manner. The affairs of a company could be effectively scrutinised by a shareholder or by successors-in-interest of a deceased shareholder. The details relating to the shareholding can be known by approach to the company or to the statutory authorities. The action of the company is subject to various statutory controls. In the background, a sale by a company in the exercise of its lien and in accordance with the provisions contained in the articles of association cannot be equated to a private sale. In that view of the matter, the doctrine of substantial representation and the absence of prejudice applicable to court sales may have application to the sale by a company also. It is, however, unnecessary to express any final view on that aspect in this case in view of my earlier conclusion that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed even otherwise. In the result, the second appeal fails and it is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 166 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... led to any relief. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The mere fact that some creditors are not in favour of the winding up, can be no ground to refuse the relief to the petitioners. Moreover, on this file the company has not proved that majority of the creditors are not in favour of the winding up. In view of the aforesaid discussion. I order the winding of the companies, i.e., M/s. Roopnagar Credit and Investment P. Ltd., M/s. Bachan Motors Financiers. P. Ltd., Roopnagar, and M/s Bala Financiers P. Ltd., Ropar, and direct the official liquidator attached to this court to take up the affairs of the companies forthwith. The petitioners are directed to advertise the order in accordance with rule 113 of the Companies (Court) Rules in The Tribune (English), Ajit (Punjabi) and Official Gazette (Pb.). I further direct that a copy of the order be filed with the Registrar of Companies within one month. However, I make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 165 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases, Directors – Power of, Oppression and mismanagement
-
1982 (10) TMI 164 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... pon a different situation altogether. In that case, though statutory notice was issued and a company petition followed, it was stayed because of certain suits being filed before some other forum. In those circumstances, when the company petition was sought to be revived, the court held The creditor, apart from the notice, was entitled to prove by other evidence that the company was unable to pay its debts. Even otherwise, since I have already concluded that the petitioner has prima facie failed to prove to the satisfaction of this court that the company is unable to pay its debts, the company petition is not maintainable, and since the petitioner failed to comply with the requisites of section 434(1)(a) or (c) of the Act, the petition is not maintainable on this ground also. Consequently, the company petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. This would not, however, preclude the petitioner from filing a company petition after observing the due formalities.
-
1982 (10) TMI 162 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... the learned judge, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the said view. It may also be relevant to point out that Form No. 9 and the observations in National Conduits (P.) Ltd. s case 1967 37 Comp. Cas. 786 (SC), were not brought to the notice of the learned judge. It is further relevant to point out that in the present case none of the alleged creditors even served a statutory notice on the company claiming the amount alleged to be due to them. I, consequently, reject the submission of Mr. Talwar. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, I order that in case the respondents fail to pay the decretal amounts with costs of the trial court and costs of this petition to the petitioners by October 31, 1982, the petition shall be advertised. However, if they pay the amounts as stated above, the petition shall stand dismissed. Costs of the petition are assessed at Rs. 1,000. Adjourned to November 4, 1982, to see whether the amounts are paid by the company.
........
|
