|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 306 Records
-
1984 (7) TMI 350 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... said decision of the Tribunal came up before this Court and this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation 1985 60 STC 118 1984 Tax LR 2894 has upheld the view of the Tribunal and held that the disputed sales in those cases were sales in the course of import and therefore they could not be brought to charge. The facts in the said decision are identical with those in the present cases and it is for that reason the Tribunal has held that the turnovers in these cases represented sales in the course of import and therefore they are exempt from tax. 3.. Hence, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Kotak and Company 1973 32 STC 6 and the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation 1985 60 STC 118 1984 Tax LR 2894, we affirm the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss the tax revision cases. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 349 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emption. On those facts, the Supreme Court held that though suo motu power of the Deputy Commissioner under section 32 of the Act, could be invoked by an assessee, who had not filed an appeal against the assessment order, the Deputy Commissioner rightly refused to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in favour of the appellant and the High Court was right in reversing the order of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as it related to the appellant s claim to the aforesaid exemption. The view taken by the Supreme Court is that where the assessee wanted a positive order from the Deputy Commissioner in his favour and such a positive order has not been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with that order. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, we are not in a position to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in this case. The tax case is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 348 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itions, namely (a) ......................................... (b) .......................................... (c) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any paddy referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (i) of section 14, the tax leviable on rice procured out of such paddy shall be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy. It is not in dispute that the assessee purchased paddy referred to in section 14(i)(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act and paid tax under the State law. If so, the tax leviable under the Central Sales Tax Act on rice procured out of such paddy and sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has to be reduced by the amount of tax levied on such paddy by the State law. In our opinion, the claim for reduction by the assessee is clearly supported by the provisions of section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1984 (7) TMI 347 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iver the goods to the actual user on whose licence and letter of authority the import was made. On these facts the Tribunal is right in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Kotak and Co. 1973 32 STC 6 (SC). The decision of the Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 492, 546 and 547 of 1976 came up before this Court in revision and this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation 1985 60 STC 118 1984 Tax LR 2894 has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Kotak and Co. 1973 32 STC 6 (SC) and the decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation 1985 60 STC 118 1984 Tax LR 2894, we hold that the decision of the Tribunal in these cases is correct. The tax revision cases are therefore dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 346 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o an export sale through the medium of an agent and this mode of transaction is evidenced by record, the fact that foreign buyers are unaware of the circumstance, would not detract from the fact that the sales are really those of the assessee. According to the learned Judges in that case, the non-disclosure of the principal by the agent in his transaction does not have any effect on the real nature of the contract between the agent and the other contracting party and therefore the fact that the agent has not disclosed the name of the principal in dealing with the foreign buyer, will not make him an independent dealer with reference to the goods exported. Having regard to the said decision of this Court, which has been rendered subsequent to the order of the Board of Revenue, its order has to be set aside and the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be restored. There will be an order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1984 (7) TMI 345 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s to levy penalty on the basis of the suppression found in the assessment order. If the Tribunal has given a finding to the effect that the slip recovered did not relate to the assessee s business but related to the business of a sister concern, it is not possible for us to ignore that finding and uphold the levy of penalty in this case. In view of the finding given by the Tribunal that the slip, which was the basis for finding of the suppression, is found to relate to some other concern, it has to be held that there was no suppression and therefore there was no justification for levying the penalty. Though we are not inclined to agree with the view of the Tribunal that the succeeding officer had no power to levy penalty in respect of the assessment made by his predecessor, we are inclined to agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal cancelling the levy of penalty. The tax case is therefore dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the contract of sale. The fact that the goods are to be despatched through lorries will not make any difference for the delivery to a common carrier by the seller will be relevant only for section 3(b) and not for the purpose of section 3(a). Under section 3(a) the relevant consideration is to find out whether the sale contract between the assessee and the buyer at Madras occasioned the out of State movement of the goods. In this case, the sale contract specifically provides for the despatch of the goods by the seller to Pondicherry. Even assuming that the despatch of the goods by the seller was on behalf of the buyer, still the movement of the goods can be said to have occasioned on the contract entered into by the assessee with the Madras buyer. In this view of the matter we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the turnover of Rs. 3,11,400 represents inter-State sales and not local sales. The tax case is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 343 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ein all the commodities which were sought to be incorporated, including pulses, on the petitioners application dated 16th January, 1959. It may further be observed that the impugned order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 30th October, 1967, is clearly erroneous on the face of the record because he could not have rejected the application dated 26th October, 1967, by treating it as an application for review or revision. On the conclusions as above this application succeeds and the rule is made absolute. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the Commercial Tax Officer to rectify the registration certificate which was issued on 18th April, 1959, by incorporating therein all the commodities as set out in the petitioners application dated 16th January, 1959, necessarily including pulses therein and further commanding the respondents to treat such rectified registration certificate as the certificate issued on 18th April, 1959. There will be no order for costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by the High Courts and other Courts. Since the decision in Sattler s case 1973 92 ITR 576 (SC) was by a Bench of two Judges and the decision in Raja Reddy Mallaram s case 1964 51 ITR 285 (SC) was by a Bench of three Judges, we have to follow the decision in the latter case. There is also a decision of this Court in K.L. Parvathamma v. Income-tax Officer 1974 93 ITR 138 stating that notices under the Income-tax Act in respect of the. income of a dissolved firm may be served on any person who was a partner, not being a minor. This decision proceeded on the terms of section 283(2) Income-tax Act, 1961 which is similar to rule 43(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. In view of this position in law, we do not think that we can find fault with the assessing authority for not rectifying the ex parte assessment orders. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 341 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... while rule 14(2) is directed to the correction of improper or illegal assessment orders which have levied less or more tax than justified, rule 17(1) lays emphasis on escaped turnover. The distinction between the two provisions might be expressed by saying that rule 14(2) deals with escaped assessments and rule 17(1) with escaped turnovers, notwithstanding that the latter also would mean that a lesser amount of tax has been levied. So understood the two provisions would be completely reconcilable and the two jurisdictions-to revise assessments and to reopen them-would each be assigned to the proper authority. In the light of these principles, since the assessing authority did not apply his mind to the disputed turnover, the revising authority could not have invoked the powers under section 21(2) of the Act. In the result, we allow these revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 340 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cord and asked the learned Standing Counsel, time and again, to show what was the proof on record to indicate that any quantity of sugarcane was ever purchased by the petitioner. His argument is that the petitioner failed to produce the purchase register and, therefore, the revisional authority was competent to make a guess. I am not impressed by this argument of Sri Agarwal. No doubt the revisional authority is competent to make a best judgment assessment, but the assessment should not be capricious and arbitrary. In the instant case, there is no documentary or circumstantial or any other evidence to prove that the petitioner ever purchased sugarcane. So the precedent condition to exercise jurisdiction has not been established and, therefore, the order of the revisional authority is absolutely without jurisdiction, which is liable to be quashed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition therefore succeeds and is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 339 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... holly erroneous. Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act simply describes the declared commodities and it does not lay down any rate of tax. It is only section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which adverts to the declared commodities under section 14 and then says that the tax payable in respect of any sale or purchase of declared goods, shall not exceed 4 per cent. So section 15 simply lays down the ceiling of 4 per cent of the tax to be levied on the declared commodities. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the assessee is liable to be taxed under section 14, is incorrect. The bare reading of serial No. 2 of the notification dated 1st December, 1973, clearly shows that the assessee, a dealer in tin scraps, is covered by the entry made at serial No. 2, and therefore, is liable to pay tax at the rate of 1 per cent only. In the result, the revision is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs. The papers will now be sent to the Tribunal for passing order under section 11(8).
-
1984 (7) TMI 338 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellate authority are co-extensive with that of the assessing authority and therefore, even if the assessee had failed to produce and furnish C form before the assessing authority at the time of original assessment, the appellate authority can permit the assessee to file C form before it and it will consider the same if it finds that there were sufficient reasons for not filing C form before the assessing authority at the time of assessment. Failure to file C form at the stage of assessment before the assessing authority is not fatal. It can be filed even at the appellate stage after showing sufficient cause. In the instant case, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted the declaration form at the appellate stage and found it to be genuine and gave the assessee the advantage of concession. We do not find any error or illegality in that order. In this view of the matter, our answer is in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1984 (7) TMI 337 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsport charges, it was charged for and indicated in the bill by the assessee without including it in the price of the goods sold. On those facts, this Court held that there were twin bargains between the assessee and the customers, one for supply of blue-metal ex-quarry at a price with reference to which sales tax had also been collected by the assessee and the other for payment of transport charges not forming part of the price of the bluemetal, but separately shown for delivery of the blue-metal at the place of the customer, if so desired, and that the requirements of rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 were fully satisfied and the assessee was therefore entitled to a deduction of the transport charges. Since this decision applies on all fours to this case, following the said decision, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction towards transport charges. The tax revision case is therefore allowed. There will however be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 336 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntainers, which were further packed in the wooden boxes, amounted to sale in sealed containers. The submission of Sri Bharatji, that the wooden boxes and the tin containers, in which the products are kept, are used merely for safe transportation and not for sale, has no force. The assessee sold the products to the various dealers in and outside the State and to them the goods were sent in tin and wooden containers, which were nailed and fastened by iron strips. The container was so closed that access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening and therefore, the sale amounted to sales in sealed container. The authorities below rightly held that it is not germane, in these cases, to see how the product was ultimately sold by the various dealers, but the important question was how the goods were sold by the assessee to the various dealers. No other ground having been pressed before me, these three revisions are dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 335 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le to pay a surcharge not on the gross turnover but on the tax payable by them. The above passage also shows that the liability to pay a surcharge is not on the gross turnover including the transactions covered by article 286 but is only on inside sales and the surcharge is sought to be levied on dealers who have a position of economic superiority. This decision therefore does not assist Mr. Jetly. 14.. In the result the question referred to us for our determination, viz. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the forfeiture of the amount in dispute was valid and consequently, confirming the same? is answered in the nagative, and against the department. In view of the above, the second question does not arise for our consideration and we decline to answer the same. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 334 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cessional rate does not arise. Though in view of the above specific mention in the invoice that the goods were sold for telegraphs and telephones, we are inclined to take the view that the goods sold are taxable at 10 per cent, still we asked Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee, to show us whether wire copper hard conforming to the specification B. ss 174/1951, size 150 lbs. per mile could at all be used for the transmission of electricity or that the assessee had ever sold copper wires of such specification for transmission of electricity, but Mr. Mehta was unable to place any material on record in support of his contention. In view of these circumstances it is held that on the facts and circumstances of the case copper wire sold by the assessee is covered by entry No. 49 of Notification No. F. 5(40) FD/RNT/63-13 dated March 2, 1963, and is not covered by Notification No. F.5(110)/FD/RT/63 dated July 15, 1963. The reference is answered in the manner indicated above.
-
1984 (7) TMI 333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o in section 29 of the Act. The failure to submit return under section 12(1) so long has not been made punishable, at any rate, there is no allegation that the petitioner had failed to submit the annual return of the turnover of the year. Having regard to the fact, as observed by the learned Sessions judge himself, the petitioner being not an assessee under the Act, he cannot be said to have committed any offence for having not submitted the return as provided under section 12-B(1) of the Act. The view taken by the Courts below, therefore, erroneous. The conviction and order of sentence passed on the petitioner-accused cannot be sustained. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed. The order under revision passed by the First Additional J.M.F.C., Sirsi, in C.C. No. 1730 of 1981, dated 29th May, 1982 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Karwar, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 36 to 41 of 1982, dated 30th October, 1982, are set aside. The fine, if any, paid shall be refunded.
-
1984 (7) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classifiaction - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... wley - page 834, - ldquo In most cases the number of monomers is quite large (3500 for pure cellulose), and often is not precisely known. In synthetic polymers this number can be controlled to a predetermined extent rdquo . In other words, a polymer does not have a definite and immutable chemical structure such as, for example, sodium chloride Nacl. Therefore, the subject product would not fall within Chapter 29. Nor would it fall under Chapter 38 since that Chapter covers only chemical products and preparations not elsewhere specified or included. For the various reasons we have spelt out, the product also falls for classification under Item No. 15A of the Central Excise Schedule. 30. emsp In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby rejected. 31. emsp A copy of this order shall be placed in each of the appeal files. 32. emsp Before parting with cases, we must place on record the invaluable assistance we have received from the learned Counsels of both sides in these cases.
-
1984 (7) TMI 331 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Benefit of Notification - Eligible to exemption preferably under Notification No. 276/67-C.E.
........
|
