|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 239 Records
-
1986 (11) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en terminated at all. If his service had been so terminated under the relevant rule, the question could possibly have arisen as to whether or not such termination could have been lawfully made. No such termination having taken place, the existence of the rule was altogether irrelevant. The State had passed an order which clearly was unsustainable in view of the fact that the appellant was a direct recruit and there was no question of reverting him to any lower post. The High Court should not have allowed itself to be misled by the misleading argument regarding the service condition under which the services of the appellant could possibly have been, but were not in fact, terminated. The view taken by the High Court is thoroughly unsustainable. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court must accordingly be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court must be restored. The parties will bear their costs throughout.
-
1986 (11) TMI 375 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e it could be established that the certificates were farzi or that there was collusion between the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer, different considerations would arise. It is true that in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a certificate required to be furnished under rule 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. But the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision would be attracted in the instant case. The order, in our opinion, was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax. 6.. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is, therefore, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the electrical goods in question were liable to be taxed under the concessional rate of tax vide Notification No. 1230-878-V-ST, dated March 28, 1968, as extended from time to time. Reference is answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1986 (11) TMI 374 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thers, amounted to failure on his part to make use of the goods for any of the purposes mentioned in section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? Mr. Bafna s submission is that even though the Supreme Court in Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1981 48 STC 239 has laid down that even when goods are sold by some other person than the one who has given declaration in form C, it cannot be said that he has violated terms of the declaration form in these cases it has not been shown that some other persons have sold the goods. I am of the opinion that the reference which has been made is fully answered by the above judgment of the Supreme Court as mentioned above and therefore it will have to be held that the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the penalty, as there was no contravention of section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In view of the above the revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 373 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e are satisfied that in view of rule 27(10) of the Rules, as it stood during the material time, i.e., between 22nd June, 1985 and 3rd April, 1986 the petitioner was entitled to pay tax at the reduced rate of Rs. 5,761, and, therefore, the notice of demand for payment of the differential amount of Rs. 34,920 is not justified. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners in all these writ petitions would be entitled to pay tax at the reduced rate from the date of reduction in the gross collection capacity till the end of the financial year covered by the agreement under section 5 of the Act. The Entertainment Tax Officers are directed to allow this relief to the respective petitioners. Notices of demand, if any, issued for collection of the differential amount during the period when the reduced rate is applicable, shall stand quashed. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. Writ Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 372 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t fix a date with retrospective effect. That question, apart from other principles to be followed for cancellation of registration certificate, has been set at rest by a Bench decision of this Court in S.J.C. Nos. 101 and 102 of 1975 disposed of on 14th September, 1977, wherein it has been held that the provision in rule 16B(1) authorising the Sales Tax Officer to specify a date in the order would not permit him to fix a date retrospectively and would always mean that a date which may be the date of making of the order or a date at any point in future could only be indicated. 5.. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders (annexures 2 and 4) cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. It is, however, made clear that the order of cancellation of the petitioner s registration certificate will be deemed to be effective from the date of service of the same on the petitioner. 6.. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
-
1986 (11) TMI 371 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctive of the question whether he was registered as a dealer or not he was liable to pay tax under the General Sales Tax Act. If so, it cannot be said that transaction of purchase by the assessee was under circumstances in which no tax was payable under section 5. These observations apply with equal force to the case in hand. 7.. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to this aspect of the matter, which according to us is crucial and relevant and necessary to fasten liability under section 5A. The matter has therefore, to go back to the Tribunal for consideration of this question whether the sellers were liable to tax under the Act despite their being not registered dealers under the Act. The remit is limited to this aspect of the matter alone. The tax revision cases are, therefore, allowed and the matters remitted to the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, for fresh consideration in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 370 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n who works a mill. There is no reason why this ordinary meaning should not be applied to the case of the petitioner.............. With respect, we adopt this definition, subject to the miller, whether as an individual or a partnership or a company, being in exclusive control of the mill, whatever be the title or other rights. 3.. Whether in the instant case the facts as determined by the competent authority qualify the petitioner as a miller so as to be entitled to the reduction in rate granted under the two notifications is a matter for final determination by the appropriate authority. We are told that appeals filed against the orders impugned in these petitions are now pending before the appellate authority. It is for that authority to determine the relevant facts and apply the same to the law as we have declared. The original petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Issue carbon/photo copies of this judgment to the parties on the usual terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1986 (11) TMI 369 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ides for revision suo Motu. It is, however, not necessary for us to go into the reasoning of the said decision at any length, for, the said reasoning is clearly opposed to the reasoning and principle of the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue v. Raj Brothers Agencies 1973 31 STC 434. It must, therefore, be held that to the extent the said decision holds that the power of revision cannot be exercised at the instance of the assessee, it is no longer good law. For the above reasons, we hold that the Commissioner asw in error in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to exercise his revisionary power at the instance of the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner does have such a power. The Commissioner, of course, has not gone into the merits of the dispute. If he thinks that any interference is called for upon the merits of the case, it is always open to him to do so. The special appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Appeal allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 368 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and not the rate applicable when section 8(2)(a) was enacted. The whole scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act is to adopt the machinery of the law relating to Sales Tax Acts of the various States, in cases where those States happen to be the appropriate States as also the rates prescribed by those Acts. The observations of the Supreme Court with regard to section 8(2)(b) apply equally to the provisions of section 8(2A). The legislative policy is to be found in the provisions of section 8(2A), and the said provision is not hit by the principle of delegation of essential legislative functions. As regards the penalties which have been imposed, the Central Sales Tax Act adopts the same procedure as are in the existence for the local Sales Tax Act, as per section 9 of the Central Act. As such there is no case made out for remission of the penalties. In this view of the matter, this writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee there arose no question of making any entry in the account books of the dealer till the time wages were paid to him. The basis that the disputed parcha belonged to the dealer, as found by the Tribunal, is that the relevant entry with regard to the said parcha does find place in the kargar register of the assessee. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal will disclose that the Tribunal has taxed a sum of Rs. 46,000 only on the basis that the value of the aforesaid raw material will amount to sale under the Act. The Tribunal has nowhere found that it was a case of suppression of turnover during the aforesaid period. Hence the contention raised on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that suppression was found to the extent of Rs. 46,000 under the aforesaid parcha is not correct. In this view of the matter, I find, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 366 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... per cent 2. Coating by weight 83.8 per cent In this report it is further stated that P.V.C. rexine cloth coating contents are composed of mixures of P.V.C. resin stabilizer, plastilizer, moderator, filter (cal. carbonate), pigment and blowing agent, etc. In view of the above constituents of P.V.C. rexine I agree with the contention of the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that although towards the end of nomenclature the word cloth is there but this cannot be held to be cotton fabric within the meaning of notification dated 25th November, 1958, and the assessee as such is not entitled to any exemption in respect of this commodity as cotton fabric cloth. In the result, these revisions succeed and are allowed and it is held that P.V.C. rexine is not a cotton fabric within the meaning of notification dated 25th November, 1958. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 365 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 110 is hereby affirmed. 23.. To finally conclude, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that Notification No. S.O. 1432 dated the 28th of December, 1985, prescribing the declaration form to be carried on a goods carrier or a vessel for transporting goods through the State of Bihar during the course of inter-State trade, is violative of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. The said notification is consequently quashed hereby. 24.. As a necessary result, the impugned orders imposing penalty and the demand notices (annexures 5 and 6) in C.W.J.C. No. 990 of 1986 (R) and annexures 6 and 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 991 of 1986 (R) are hereby set aside. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby allowed, but in view of the difficult legal issues involved and the conflict of judicial opinion, the parties are left to bear their own costs. SATYESHWAR ROY, J.-I agree. S.N. JHA, J.-I entirely agree. Writ Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 364 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... my opinion, the argument advanced on behalf of the dealer has substance. Firstly, it cannot be said that the co-operative society has any family in this case and that service on the daughter of the secretary of the society was a valid one. Secondly, in my opinion, the words member of his family used in subrule (4) of rule 77 of the Rules do not take any colour from the word employee as suggested by the learned standing counsel. Consequently, in my opinion, in the present case the service made on the daughter of the secretary of the co-operative society was not a valid service in the eye of law and the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from a manifest error of law. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) holding that the appeal is barred by time is set aside with directions to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) to hear the appeal on merits. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 363 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... such the decision is not applicable. Regarding other projected deficiencies it is not necessary to dilate upon in detail as they are matters to be considered in the course of making the assessment and such deficiencies, if any, do not affect the validity of the provisions. In W.P. Nos. 1064, 1065, 1067 and 1400 of 1985 the transactions relating to works contract for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 were before 1st July, 1985 and prior to the enactment of Act 18 of 1985. These transactions are not exigible to levy of tax in view of the decision of this Court in 1985 58 STC 241 (Hotel Dwaraka, Hyderabad v. Union of India). In the result, W.P. Nos. 1064,1065,1067 and 1400 and 841 of 1985 allowed. W.P. Nos. 8256, 9912, 11184, 12094, 14105 and 14394 of 1985 and W.P. Nos. 380, 627, 930, 1244, 1979, 2130, 2132, 2863, 3107, 3293, 3458, 3574, 4136, 4925, 7280, 9149, 9710 and 11585 of 1986 dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each writ petition. Ordered accordingly.
-
1986 (11) TMI 362 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom villagers who were themselves not dealers and the assessee has maintained details with regard to such purchases, since the assessee has done all that was possible and in the absence of any finding that the sale and purchase were not verifiable, the rejection on this ground could not be maintained. Under the special facts of this case and in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, I am also inclined to take the view that the first ground is not available to the department to reject the account books. As regards the second ground that the sales disclosed are inadequate in relation to the stock, it is by now settled law that on this basis there could be no rejection of account books. Under the circumstances, the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the book version of the turnover shown by the dealer. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs and the dealer is declared exempt from tax for the assessment year 1981-82. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 361 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner. It is not in dispute that either the provisional assessment or the assessment is not made as yet. Before making any provisional assessment, the respondent has no jurisdiction to call upon the third party to withhold the payment to the petitioner. In so far as the issuance of notice or a direction for withholding the payment is concerned, it is quashed. The assessing authority is not precluded from making provisional assessment or final assessment and take appropriate proceedings for recovery of the tax. The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 360 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me in common commercial parlance. Freezing operations are only carried on for the purpose of preventing decomposition and decay and to make them ready for the table. The character and identity of the frog legs are not in any manner changed by the operations of removing the skin, washing and removing the dirt and freezing. The common man as well as the trader understand both only as frog legs without any distinction between them. As stated by the Supreme Court the only difference is that the fresh frog legs are not ready for the table while processed ones are. There can be no doubt that there is commercial identity between fresh frog legs and the processed ones and that the latter retained the same character and identity as the fresh ones. It is, therefore, clear that the goods exported are the same as those purchased and hence the assessee is entitled to the benefits of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We dismiss the tax revision case in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 359 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s placed on Commissioner of Taxes, Assam v. Prabhat Marketing Co. Ltd. 1967 19 STC 84 (SC) and M.A. Razack and Company v. State of Madras 1967 19 STC 135 (SC). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State relied upon A. Srinivasa Pai v. State of Kerala 1975 36 STC 482 (Ker) and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam, v. Raja Oil Mills 1979 43 STC 78 (Ker) FB to contend that the bardana was taxable. According to the Supreme Court in Razack and Co. s case 1967 19 STC 135, as the value of the packing material as compared to the value of the contents of the packet was insignificant, an agreement to sell packing material independently of chewing tobacco could not, under the general law, be implied. Thus, the order assessing the bardana in the said writ petition is quashed as no independent agreement has been shown to exist. Consequently, all the impugned orders are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. D.S. TEWATIA, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 358 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lso be covered within the ambit of expression timber or log put to a particular use. The view taken by this Court in 1975 35 STC 270 (Krupasindhu Sahu and Sons v. State of Orissa) that big sized logs of wood ordinarily used in house construction as beams and pillars would be covered within the meaning of timber and log was approved but the view that the timber when converted into planks, rafters and other wood products would not come within the meaning of log or timber , was rejected. It was categorically held that the planks and rafters would also be log or timber. 3.. In that view of the matter, we also hold that the sized timbers are covered within the expression of logs and timbers. The assessee-petitioner, therefore, had not committed any violation and the declarations submitted by him were in order. 4.. In the result both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. We make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (11) TMI 357 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... short question is whether the suppression for a subsequent period which was available at the time of making the assessment would have a reasonable nexus to the assessment? The answer is simple. The suppression is for the subsequent year. A future action cannot be a nexus for best judgment assessment of the previous period. Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in finding that the assessing authority cannot place reliance on the slip which is subsequent to the period of assessment. 5.. In the result, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct to hold that the books of accounts maintained by the assessee on the Diwali year basis should not have been rejected for suppressions found on 14th April, 1970, 15th April, 1970 and 16th April, 1970 and as such the enhancement made for the assessment year 1969-70 has correctly been annulled. 6.. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee. No costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
