|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 144 Records
-
1983 (6) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 7-A. We are also inclined to agree with the view of the Tribunal on the said facts of this case. The position whether the purchase turnover taxable under section 7-A is includible in the total turnover of the assessee was not clear and the matter came to be clarified by the Full Bench of this Court only recently in State of Tamil Nadu v. Manakchand (T.C. No. 731 of 1977 dated 3rd February, 1983) 1984 56 STC 237 (FB). Till then the assessees have been taking the view that the purchase turnover taxable under section 7-A is not includible in the total turnover. Recently the position has been made clear. Having regard to the fact that form A-2, did not require the purchase turnover under section 7-A being included in the total turnover, the return filed by the assessees cannot be said to be incorrect or incomplete. Therefore, in this case the Tribunal appears to be right in holding that section 12(5) cannot be invoked in this case. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for raw hides and skins and for dressed hides and skins. A close reading of section 15(b) would indicate that the relief under the provision can be claimed only when there is complete identity between the goods which were sold locally and the goods sold inter-State. Therefore, merely because both raw hides and skins and tanned hides and skins had been grouped as one item in section 14(iii) of the Central Act, it is not possible to say that for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act, they should be taken to be commercially the same commodity. In this view also, we have to hold that the decision of the Tribunal is correct and it is upheld. The tax cases are accordingly dismissed. No costs. The learned counsel for the assessees makes an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now rendered by us, However, we feel that this is not a fit and proper case for the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Hence the oral request rejected.
-
1983 (6) TMI 168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting to devouring, here, on the facts of this case, the timber should be taken to have been devoured in the manufacture of packing cases and it loses its identity once and forever. A packing case, in any sense of the term, cannot be called timber, for it not only becomes a different commercial product but its uses also are different. No one can call a packing case as timber as such. The decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. 1981 47 STC 30, on which reliance is placed by the assessee itself, lays down that once the identity of the goods is lost in the process of manufacture then the goods should be taken to be consumed in the manufacture. Thus, we find that even applying the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. 1981 47 STC 30, we have to hold that in this case there is consumption of timber in the manufacture of packing cases. This will show that section 7-A has rightly been applied to the facts of this case. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 167 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... KSCDC and CCI it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion. So, the only course left open to us is to send back the files back to the concerned assessing authority for ascertaining all these details and to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. The reasons for the remand has been explained in elaborate detail and we see no reason to find that they are not sufficient to justify the remand when the Tribunal feels that the assessing authority has not chosen to get the documents which are relevant for the purpose of the assessment and the assessee has not been called upon to produce those documents. It is only fair that the case is remitted back to the assessing authority so that what ought to have been done is done. The propriety of the remand, which is the subject-matter of the question raised in this revision is answered against the revision-petitioner. The remand is called for. We see no reason for interference. Hence the revision is dismissed but without costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rescribed time or (iii) if the return submitted is found to be incomplete or incorrect. Admittedly, in this case, the assessing authority not only rejected the return filed by the assessee as incorrect and incomplete but also rejected the accounts of the assessee and proceeded to make a best judgment assessment. Admittedly, the best judgment assessment is not on the basis of the book entries. Therefore, the assessment cannot be said to have been made under sub-section (4) of section 12. The penalty under section 12(5) can be levied only if the assessment is made under sub-section (4) of section 12, that is, when the assessment is made on the basis of the entries found in the books of account of the assessee, and not when the assessment is made de hors the accounts and after rejecting the same. Thus, the Tribunal in this case appears to be right in holding that the penalty under section 12(5) cannot be justified on the facts of the case. The tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 165 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y must look to the powers conferred and the limitations imposed by the Act. In a case of remand, it is the remand order which gives jurisdiction to the authority to redo the assessment. The assessing authority must, therefore, carefully examine the points complained of by the assessee and the opinion expressed by the appellate authority. The revised assessment order must fall strictly within the four corners of the remand order. The remand order at the instance of the assessee cannot be used to reopen the assessment for the purpose of taxing the escaped turnover. The Act provides a separate procedure for such purpose. 11.. Since the remand order cannot be construed to be an open remand, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has erred in holding otherwise. 12.. In the result, the appeal is allowed in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is restored. 13.. The appellant is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1983 (6) TMI 164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... davits in the absence of other corroborative documents or materials. Merely because the assessee has chosen to produce affidavits in support of his claim for exemption, it cannot be said that it must be automatically accepted as sufficient proof of the claim for exemption. Whether the statements made in the affidavits should be taken as correct or not is for the Tribunal, and it cannot be said that in every case, if evidence is adduced in the form of affidavits, it should be straightway accepted by the Tribunal without reference to the other facts and circumstances. In our view, in this case, the exporters, who had given affidavits, could have easily produced the agreements entered into with the foreign buyers to show that the export contract was entered into before the sales were effected by the assessee and that the said sales are penultimate sales preceding the export sale. On the facts, the Tribunal appears to have come to the right conclusion. The tax case is dismissed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 163 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... constitutionality in favour of the classification or reclassification so made by virtue of any statute or any order or notification made thereunder. The burden lies on the person challenging such classification to show that being unreasonable it offends article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that the classification now made has no reasonable basis to stand upon. In fact, no factual basis has been laid by the petitioners for the claim that the reclassification is arbitrary or capricious. The petitioners have nowhere placed on record any material to show that the brick industry was still as much underdeveloped as the tile industry and that they accordingly deserved equal protection. In the absence of such material, the claim that the brick industry has been discriminated against by withdrawing the exemption that it previously enjoyed along with the tile industry cannot be said to be wellfounded. The contention must fail.
-
1983 (6) TMI 162 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , therefore, remains that on order levying penalty was served on the petitioner. It can also be reasonably inferred that the petitioner was not aware of that order. It is further clear from the records that the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle in question was not travelling in it along with the goods. It was only upon the notice dated 31st May, 1978, being served upon him that he came to know of the matter and got the goods released from the check post authorities. Quite naturally, he acted only upon the notice served on him. Under these circumstances, the authorities below were not correct in insisting upon the production of the order appealed against. 11.. In the result, we allow this revision petition, set aside the orders of the Tribunal as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwad Division, Dharwad, and remit the matter to the latter with a direction to entertain the appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law.
-
1983 (6) TMI 161 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e under section 7(2). There is intrinsic evidence in section 8 to support this interpretation. The evidence is available in sub-section (3) which clearly provides that a tax due on the basis of quarterly returns under sub-section (2) of section 7 shall be paid before the expiry of the last date for filing such return, and that in case of default the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 8 shall, inter alia, apply meaning thereby that the arrears shall be recoverable with interest in accordance with sub-section (2) reckoned from the date of the last date for filing the returns. In the circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the interest shall be leviable on the expiry of period specified in the notice served under section 8 has no merit in it and must fail. In other respects, I have nothing to add to the judgment proposed by my learned brother. In the result, I agree with him that the petitions deserve to be dismissed and I order accordingly.
-
1983 (6) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... It is, that in case the court has some doubt whether the disputes raised by the debtor company are bona fide or not and it is unable to come to a definite conclusion, the court may stay the winding-up proceedings and ask the creditor to seek his remedy in a civil court and direct the debtor company to furnish security to prove its bona fide and solvency. To fortify his argument, he refers to Ofu Lynx Ltd. v. Simon Carves India Ltd. 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 174 (Cal.). There is also no dispute about the said proposition. It is not necessary to deal with the matter as we have already held that the dispute raised by the company is a bona fide one, and consequently the petition for winding up is not maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeals, set aside the order of the learned single judge and dismiss the petition for winding up of the financiers. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. S. S. Sandhawalia, CJ. mdash I agree.
-
1983 (6) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Reduction of share capital – Application to Tribunal for confirming order, objections by creditors, and settlement of list of objecting creditors
-
1983 (6) TMI 157 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Oppression and mismanagement –Power of Tribunal on application under sections 397 and 398 ... ... ... ... ..... mpany and to submit a report to this court stating the fair value of the said shares within eight weeks from date. He is directed to include in his report the break-up of the value of the assets of the company and the basic calculations. He will be at liberty to engage an engineer or technical expert to value any particular asset on notice to the parties. All evidence and material including the report of the engineer or expert, if any, should be disclosed to the parties who will be heard by the valuer before the report is made. The initial remuneration of the new valuer is fixed at Rs. 7,000 which will be paid in the first instance by the petitioner. All parties and the valuer to act on the signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking. The report of the valuer will be subject to confirmation by the court. Other orders, as prayed for, will be considered before this application is finally disposed of. Stay of operation of the order is granted for two weeks.
-
1983 (6) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Advertisement of petition ... ... ... ... ..... r article 133 to the Supreme Court from the judgment just now pronounced. We think that this appeal does not involve any substantial question or questions of law of general importance needing to be decided by the Supreme Court. We, accordingly, refuse the certificate sought for, and dismiss the oral application. However, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant intends to move the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal under article 136 of the Constitution, and that pending furnishment of certified copies and for a reasonable period thereafter, the operation of our judgment in appeal and the further proceedings in Company Petition No. 8 of 1980 be stayed. In O.S.A. No. 9 of 1983 we have, while refusing a certificate, have granted such a stay till July 31, 1983. In view of that order, the prayer here is superfluous. As long as that order of stay subsists, there is no necessity to make another order of stay of the same proceedings before the company court.
-
1983 (6) TMI 135 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Shares – Power To Issue of at Discount ... ... ... ... ..... d. 1960 30 Comp. Cas. 300 (Punj.), People s Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.R.E. Wood and Co. Ltd. 1961 31 Comp. Cas. 61 (Punj.), Smt. Soma Vati Devi Chand v. Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. AIR 1966 Punj. 44, and Public Passenger Service Ltd. v. M.A. Khadar 1966 36 Comp. Cas. 1 (SC) and a few others. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel. No complicated question of fact is involved in this petition. On a pure question of law, a reference was made and the same has been decided without any difficulty. In this view of the matter, the petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that the petitioners should seek relief in the civil court. No other point arises for consideration. For the reasons recorded above, we allow this petition and direct that the names of the petitioners be restored and that of the respondents be deleted and necessary rectification in the register of members be made. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 134 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... ivil court can entertain a suit of a civil nature except a suit of which its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to establish his contention. There can be no gainsaying that if the legislature intends to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court, it must say so expressly or by necessary implication. I cannot find any words either in section 155 of the Act or in some other provision of the Act which can lead to the inference that the civil court s jurisdiction is barred. In this view of the matter, I hold that for the matters falling within the purview of section 155 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. No other point arises for consideration. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and consequently dismiss the same. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. S. S. Sandhawalia, J. mdash I agree.
-
1983 (6) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... earned Magistrate for the order he has passed. The learned Magistrate appears to have passed a detailed order taking into consideration the long petition of complaint and the initial deposition of the complainant s witness in support thereof. There are sufficient and cogent reasons for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and to issue process. The petition will, therefore, fail. But it is made clear that the contentions raised by the accused petitioner touch the case both in the matter of territorial jurisdiction of the court and in the matter of his being or not being an officer of the company. So, the accused petitioner will have the liberty to reagitate the points after evidence has been adduced at the trial and the learned Magistrate will consider the points in depth upon evidence. Subject to the above observations, the rule is discharged on contest. The order of stay earlier issued is vacated. The records be sent down to the court concerned forthwith.
-
1983 (6) TMI 106 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscated goods to be returned on payment of fine subject to condition of re-export within specified time
-
1983 (6) TMI 105 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Exemption when retrospective in effect ... ... ... ... ..... ces for which we are in agreement with the arguments submitted by the learned Consultant Shri Trivedi. The peculiar circumstances are the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980 and as per these provisions the Notification No. 7/78, dated 17-1-1978 has retrospective effect and this is available in determining the average count of yarn in the cotton fabrics covered by the appeal. In view of this legal position, we do not find justification in the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and the same is dismissed. As regards the cross-objection filed by the respondent, it is seen that the same merely seeks to justify the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. It does not seek to vary any part of the aforesaid order. Therefore, this cross-objection seems to have been filed through misconception of law. The same is also dismissed as not being valid and correct.
-
1983 (6) TMI 104 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... in credit in a paper account or not ceases to be relevant. It is perhaps in this context that the Department has been loosely stating that when finished goods cease to be dutiable, the credit in RG 23 account lapses. In a situation like the present one where the appellants may have to face the prospect of payments of much larger sums than the credit admissible to them in RG 23 account, it is only fair that the administrative act of closing RG 23 account and treating all the credits therein as lapsed is not completed until the decision of the Supreme Court is known in respect of the liability of the appellants. In this view we set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and order that the credit already granted in RG 23 account be carried till the final decision of the Supreme Court on the pending issues referred to at para 4 is available and the liability of the appellants to pay sums in relation to the finished compound fertilisers is finally determined.
........
|
