|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 231 Records
-
1984 (12) TMI 279
... ...
... ... ..... Looking to the nature of the commodity and the manner in which it was required to be transported for the purpose of resale or export, such a loss was inevitable. 37.. In such cases the assessee has in fact carried out the terms of the certificate given by him under form 16 in a substantial manner and he cannot be held accountable for every single drop of the commodity which he had purchased under form 16. In such circumstances he has, therefore, not contravened the certificate given by him in form 16. Hence purchase tax under section 14 is not leviable in the case of the assessee in Sales Tax References Nos. 20 and 21 of 1980. In the premises the questions referred to us are answered as follows The question in Reference No. 63 of 1979 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The question in Sales Tax References Nos. 20 and 21 of 1980 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 278
... ...
... ... ..... statute has to be strictly construed and if two views are possible it is settled law, that the one which favours the assessee, has to be taken. The presumption as suggested by Mr. Dutt cannot be read into the order of assessment, particularly when the petitioner has in the petition categorically stated that its turnover for every year has not been above 2.5 lacs. The assessing authority has not determined this factum, and therefore, the levy of surcharge without such a determination is improper and that levy has to be quashed and the case remanded to the assessing authority for fresh determination of the surcharge. We accordingly allow the writ petition in part and quash the levy of surcharge amounting to Rs. 1,730.22 and remand the case to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order with regard to the surcharge in the light of the observations made hereinabove after hearing the parties. Since the writ petition succeeds only in part, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 277
... ...
... ... ..... n and it has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Amritsar v. Suresh Seth 1981 129 ITR 328 (SC). 8.. Mr. Jetly also relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Eastern Ore Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam 1974 33 STC 129 (FB). We do not propose to discuss this decision, as we fail to see any relevance of this decision to the determination of the question before us. The question there was altogether different, viz., whether sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the one hand and sub-section (4) of section 14 on the other hand postulate two different situations or whether they can be considered as conflicting or contradictory provisions. 9.. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. The applicant to pay the costs of the reference to the respondent.
-
1984 (12) TMI 276
... ...
... ... ..... he Goa Sales Tax Act. There was therefore nothing to hold that in respect of sale of goods covered under entry 68 of the Second Schedule exempting the sale of their goods by the petitioners who are registered small-scale industry from local sales tax, the Government had levied sales tax on the sales of the said goods at any other specified stage. The contention of the learned Government Pleader therefore that since in respect of the sales covered under entry 68 of the Second Schedule sales tax was payable at a later stage in respect of the said sales, sales tax was levied at a specified stage so as to cover the said sales under the explanation, cannot be accepted. 34.. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) and (b)(i), (ii) and (iii) to the petition. Under the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. An oral application made by the learned Government Pleader for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is rejected.
-
1984 (12) TMI 275
... ...
... ... ..... and in the previous SRO No. 671 of 1979 dated 18th December, 1979 wherein the words No unit shall be entitled to exemption for a period exceeding 10 years as compared to the words used in SRO No. 267 of 1978 The exemption hereinabove granted shall be available for a period of 10 years are wide enough to empower the Government to withdraw the notification relating to grant of sales tax even before the period of 10 years expires. 10.. On the basis of the propositions referred to above, it is held that the Government is not estopped from withdrawing the exemption to the petitioners units by SRO No. 671 of 1979 and thus SRO No. 118 of 1984 is intra vires the powers of the State Government and it is neither unconstitutional nor illegal. The SRO is, therefore, upheld. The petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11.. For the foregoing reasons, all the abovesaid three writ petitions are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The connected C.M.Ps. are also accordingly disposed of.
-
1984 (12) TMI 274
... ...
... ... ..... efund all amounts as would be deposited by the petitioners, in addition to or over and above the payments which would be due from them, with necessary legal interest, within eight weeks from the date when the Rule will succeed. There will be no order as to costs in this application. Applications in F.M.A.T. Nos. 3185 of 1984, 3714 of 1984 and 2363 of 1984. The points involved in the above applications being similar to those as in F.M.A.T. No. 2362 of 1984, we make the same order as proposed in that case. As such, these applications are also disposed of without any order as to costs. Let the hearing of the above appeals be expedited. Paper books cyclostyled or typewritten incorporating all papers in the Court below and so also in this Court be filed by four weeks after the Christmas Holidays. It should be noted that this is the last chance given to the appellants. Filing of index is dispensed with. Service of notice of appeal is waived. AMARENDRA CHANDRA SENGUPTA, J.-I agree.
-
1984 (12) TMI 273
... ...
... ... ..... feguards the interests of the Government as envisaged by section 29 of the Act. The goods shall be released forthwith as ordered in W.P.M.P. No. 4887 of 1984. In this view the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. On the pronouncement of the above order, the learned counsel for the respondent requested for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Against the decision striking down section 28(6) of the Act no appeal was filed. That decision rendered in W.P. No. 3515 of 1970 on 10th November, 1971 (Kotha Rama Doss v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) (printed at page 53 supra) was accepted by the respondent for the last eleven years. So far as the power under section 29 is concerned, it is upheld. Therefore, we are unable to certify that this matter involves such substantial questions of law of general importance as require the consideration of the Supreme Court or that it is otherwise a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave refused.
-
1984 (12) TMI 272
... ...
... ... ..... behalf of the Department. It is now a settled proposition of law that the State must not non-suit the citizens on the technical pleas like that of limitation and others and should obtain the decision on merits. In view of the fact that the assessing authority has apparently erred in giving contradictory orders, the demand raised on all cannot ex facie be permitted to stand. One of the two orders is likely to be set aside and I cannot forestall as to which interpretation the appellate authority would give. It would be in the interest of justice that the payment of demand raised is not enforced till the disposal of the appeals. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the Department. However, a direction is issued to the appellate authority for deciding the appeals on merits on or before February 28, 1985 and not to enforce the realisation of the demand raised till the disposal of the appeals. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 271
... ...
... ... ..... he third category of cases covered by sub-section (3A) of section 36 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 as amended by Gujarat Act IX of 1967 was attracted only if the assessee failed to make the required payment prior to the actual assessment of his total turnover. In that case, the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 36, as amended, were quite clear and not identical with the provisions of the explanation before us. The relevant phrase used in the said sub-section was exceeds the sum already paid by the dealer in respect of such period prior to such assessment or reassessment by more than twenty per cent.......... . In view of this, we do not propose to discuss this case in any detail. 10.. In the premises, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer. 11.. The respondent to pay to the applicant the costs of the reference. The amount of Rs. 100 deposited by the applicant with the Sales Tax Tribunal to be refunded to the applicant.
-
1984 (12) TMI 270
... ...
... ... ..... by section 13-A(6) is taken for safeguarding the recovery of the penalty, which may ultimately be imposed in connection with the seized goods. On the facts of the instant case, it is apparent that the maximum penalty which could be imposed on the petitioners, if the alleged breach on their part is established, would be the amount representing one and one half times of the amount of tax. This sum has to be determined by the Assistant Commissioner. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 3rd September, 1984 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Moradabad Range, Moradabad, respondent No. 2, except in so far as it directs the release of 70 bags of dross without furnishing any security, is quashed and he is directed to determine afresh. In accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations made above, the amount of security to be furnished by the petitioner for getting the remaining seized goods released.
-
1984 (12) TMI 269
Termination of service of the Headmaster of the School Shri Manmohan Singh Jaitla and the drawing teacher Amir Singh as no longer required - Held that:- Petition allowed - order terminating the service of Headmaster Manmohan Singh Jaitla is quashed and set aside as also the decisions of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner and the Judgment of the High Court are quashed and set aside & reinstated in service with continuity in service and full backwages subject to the fact that if backwages have been paid under the orders of this Court, credit may be given for the same. Rule is made absolute in the writ petition filed by Drawing Teacher Amir Singh and the order terminating his service is quashed and set aside as also the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner and he is reinstated in service with continuity in service with back-wages.
The respondent-School management shall pay the costs to both the employees separately quantified in each case at Rs 1, 500.
-
1984 (12) TMI 268
Acquisition by Central Government of foreign exchange ... ... ... ... ..... ed upon the second petitioner cannot stand. It is not now necessary to go into the alternate argument advanced by Mr. Hidayatullah that the amounts mentioned in the credit notes were contingent debts because the foreign manufacturers were entitled to deduct from them in the event of the Indian buyers not paying the invoiced prices. The order of the Appellate Board dated November 29, 1980, is quashed and set aside to the extent that it upholds the contravention of the charge under section 9, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed upon the first petitioners, and of Rs. 4,000 upon the second petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule accordingly. The respondents shall return to the petitioners such amount as has been deposited by them in excess of the penalty which is not challenged within a period of four weeks from today. The bank guarantee given by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order of this court shall stand discharged after a period of four weeks from today.
-
1984 (12) TMI 267
Powers of Central Government to assume management or control of an industrial undertaking in certain cases
-
1984 (12) TMI 258
Court - Jurisdiction of, Shares certificate, Share warrants and entries in register of members
-
1984 (12) TMI 250
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... t dues of any of the creditors of the applicant company. Hence, no disposal of any property or assets, which may be effected by the company pending final hearing and disposal of the winding-up petition as aforesaid to or in favour of the SBI or the IDBI pursuant to the present order shall be, voided if the winding-up order is made, if at all, against the company in such position. It is also clarified that the amount of Rs. 20,00,000 which was permitted to be advanced by the SBI pursuant to my order dated October 22, 1984, in Company Application No. 148 of 1984, shall be treated as a part and parcel of the advance which are being sanctioned pursuant to the present order which is the final order. Company Application No. 148 of 1984 accordingly is allowed and stands disposed of finally, with no order as to costs. In view of the above order, it is not necessary to pass any order on Company Application No. 225 of 1984 and the same also stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 249
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... may be the practice in English courts, we must here follow that which is most convenient to our conditions. In the guise of settling a just claim, this court should not clutch at jurisdiction which may act as a precedent which later may result in rendering the company court into a civil court of summary jurisdiction. Therefore, the restraint to be imposed in such cases as this is more controlled by judicial restraint rather than by the construction of the provisions of law on their strict language. For the above reasons, leaving it open to the applicants to realise their security in appropriate proceedings in civil court, their applications are rejected. If in the meanwhile the official liquidator brings to sale any of these properties, the proceeds realised from such sale shall be kept intact until the applicants have obtained a decree for payment of such amount from the civil court or obtained any other restraint in respect of the goods hypothecated in accordance with law.
-
1984 (12) TMI 248
Charges – Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... decreed that for recovery of the amounts mentioned at serial Nos. (a), ( b) and (e) above, the mortgaged property given in Schedule A, B(1) and B(2) be sold and that for the purpose of such sale, the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer or as appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property. It is also ordered and decreed that the money realised by such sale shall be paid into the court and shall be duly applied (after deduction therefrom of the expenses of sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under the decree and in payment of any amount which the court may have adjudged due to the plaintiff for such costs of the suit including the costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of Order 34 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the official liquidator.
-
1984 (12) TMI 247
Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... our of IDBI or SBI, IRCI, IFCI and ICICI, pursuant to the present order shall be voided if the winding-up order is made, if at all, against the company in such petition. It is clarified that the amount of Rs. 20,00,000 which was permitted to be advanced by SBI pursuant to my earlier order dated November 23, 1984, in Company Application No. 210 of 1984 shall be treated to be part and parcel of the advances which are being sanctioned pursuant to the present order which is the final order. Mr. Oza at this stage requested me to stay the operation of my present order for one week. In my view, looking to the facts and circumstances which are discussed in detail above, it is not necessary to grant any stay as requested by Mr. Oza. No prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioning creditors who are unsecured creditors if more finance is made available to the company which will make the mill company which is a debtor of unsecured creditors a healthier debtor than what it is today.
-
1984 (12) TMI 223
Winding up – Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... limitation, for which the petition for winding up remained pending in this court and a further period of one year under section 458A of the Act. The petition remained pending in the court for a period of two years, nine months and fourteen days. Thus, in all, the petition could be filed within a period of six years, nine months and fourteen days. According to the calculations, the limitation expired on September 5, 1983. However, the petition was filed on October 24, 1983. Thus, it is clearly barred by limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. It is well settled that the provisions of this section are mandatory and it is the duty of the court to dismiss the petition if it is barred by limitation. For the reasons aforesaid, I dismiss the petition as barred by limitation . No order as to costs.
-
1984 (12) TMI 222
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts and Application for ... ... ... ... ..... d that the grounds on which admission was refused are not sustainable in law, we are not proceeding to admit the petition, for the condition precedent for such admission has to depend on a motion made by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking leave. Inasmuch as such a motion has not been made, we leave the matter to be finally disposed of by the learned company judge taking into account what we have said in this judgment. In other words, having found that the approach by the learned company judge on the question before the learned judge was not in accordance with law, we set aside that order and remit the case back to the company judge to pass appropriate orders taking also into account the fact that, as it is, there is no application for leave before the court under rule 97 of the Companies (Court) Rules. The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs. At the request of the counsel for the respondent-company, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks.
........
|
