|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 237 Records
-
1986 (3) TMI 327 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... directed to grant admission to the Appellant. The Appellant had thus secured the admission she wanted. In view of this, it is unnecessary for us to consider the validity of Rule C(5) except to state that we do not agree with the High Court when it has said that there is nothing abhorrent about the requirement contained in the said Rule. The question of validity of Rule C(5) requires careful consideration and it cannot be brushed aside in the manner in which the High Court has done. As stated earlier, we, however, leave this question open. In the result, this Appeal must succeed and is allowed. The judgment of the High Court appealed against is reversed and the order passed by it dismissing. Writ Petition No.1683 of 1985 filed by the Appellant is set aside but as the Appellant has already been admitted into the Nagpur Medical College, we do not pass any further order or give any direction in the matter. The First Respondent will pay to the Appellant the costs of this Appeal.
-
1986 (3) TMI 326 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll those who had deposited the premium or at least one installment on terms and conditions mentioned in 1959 Order read with 1960 Order. (ii) To issue notices to all those lessees to whom no notice was issued and determine their premium etc on terms and conditions mentioned in 1959-60 Orders expeditiously. (iii) To determine premium etc. of others to whom notices were issued but it could not be finalised for one reason or other at any early date. (iv) Determine rate of premium etc for premises which are used as residential cum commercial purpose in light of 1965 Order. (v) Determine rate of premium used for commercial purpose in light of various Orders issued till 1965. (vi) Lessees shall after grant of fresh leases file the necessary forms etc. within one month before the Prescribed Authority under Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 76) if it had already not been filed who shall proceed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible. 36. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1986 (3) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he was influenced by this consideration in imposing a heavy penalty. So even though there may be some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of penalty is rather high having regard to all the circumstances of the case there can be no manner of doubt that the assessing authority had the jurisdiction and was competent to impose penalty cumulatively for the delay in filing all the four quarterly returns in the relevant year. Since the jurisdiction of this Court is only advisory and not supervisory in a matter like this, we are unable to afford any relief to the petitioner in the matter so long as action of the assessing authority is within the four corners of law. To sum up, therefore, my answer to the question referred is in the affirmative. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the complicated nature of the question involved therein, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (3) TMI 324 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hase turnover relating to petroleum products despatched by way of export to countries outside India would squarely fall under section 5A and is exigible to tax under the Act. 12.. We, therefore, allow T.R.C. Nos. 14 and 17 of 1986 and restore the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). T.R.C. No. 20 of 1986 is also allowed and setting aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the purchase turnover of petroleum products exported to countries outside India, we sustain the levy of tax on the said purchase turnover. T.R.C. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1986 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Counsel for the assessee prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in T.R.C. Nos. 14, 17 and 20 of 1986. We see no substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer for leave is accordingly rejected. T.R.C. Nos. 14, 17 and 20 of 1986 allowed. T.R.C. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1986 dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 323 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the matter. This reference which has been heard as a revision is disposed of as under (1) the common order dated November 30, 1973, of the Division Bench of the Board passed in the special appeals under section 14(4A) of the Amendment Act is set aside (2) the Sales Tax Tribunal constituted under section 2A of the Act shall dispose of the cases in accordance with the law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove (3) it will be for the Sales Tax Tribunal to consider whether penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Act should be imposed and if so, how much in respect of the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66. It is, however, made clear that on fulfilment of the conditions laid down under section 12, it will be open to the Sales Tax Tribunal to make best judgment assessment of the assessee-non-petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this court. Ordered accordingly.
-
1986 (3) TMI 322 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ny kind can be run on mere bank guarantee or security. So too the fact that the impugned orders made no reference to the security furnished by the assessee, will not make the order any the less invalid because what is ordered is that disputed tax shall be paid in instalments indicating that the security is not accepted. Is it worthwhile for this Court to encumber its files with like proceedings when no fundamental right is infringed, nor is any public interest in imminent danger, but only some inconvenience is caused to an assessee? I hasten to answer this question in the negative. Though it is desirable that the order should indicate some reasoning if not all and also that the instalments should be spread over at reasonable intervals this is not in my view, an exceptional or extraordinary case where this Court owes a duty to exercise its power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed in limine. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 321 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6th October, 1952 (b) the periods of assessment 16th October, 1952 to 31st October, 1952 and 1st November, 1952 to 31st March, 1953, in respect of general tax as well as special tax (c) the period of assessment 1st April, 1953 to 31st March, 1954 in respect of general tax as well as special tax and (d) in respect of the penalty of Rs. 1,754-8-3 in respect of the period 1st April, 1949 to 31st March, 1951? 12.. As far as question No. (i)(a) is concerned, the same is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. As far as questions Nos. (i)(b), (i)(c) and (i)(d) are concerned, the same are answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. Question No. (ii) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 13.. Before parting with the matter, we would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Joshi for having assisted us as amicus curiae in the hearing of this reference. 14.. There will be no order as to the costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1986 (3) TMI 320 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... enalty under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 10.. In Somasundaram R.S. v. Thanjavur District Co-operative Supply Market Society Ltd. 1983 96 LW 562 dealing with a case arising under T.N. Act 53 of 1961 it was held that reference in a general manner to the illegalities would not be sufficient and that there should be a specific finding about wilful and deliberate acts of negligence, and that, any finding of negligence or callousness would not be sufficient. 11.. Another Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Adam and Co. 1979 43 STC 508 arising under the Sales Tax Act took the same view as in Ramakutty Nadar v. State of Madras 1973 31 STC 44 (Mad.). Therefore, due to omission to comply with the requirements of the Act, loss having occasioned, the disciplinary action taken cannot be held as illegal. 12.. For the reasons above stated, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 319 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ure included in clause 27 of the Schedule of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957. 2.. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Champakulam Village Service Co-operative Society Ltd. 1980 46 STC 318 has held that rock phosphate is a chemical fertilizer falling under entry 54 as it stood at the relevant time. We therefore see no reason to take a different view and hold that zinc sulphate is a chemical fertilizer. The tax revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 318 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sioner which matter is still pending. It is just and proper that the matter receives attention of the Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, and appropriate order is passed by him within six weeks from today. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow within one week. Meanwhile for this period of six weeks further proceedings in pursuance to the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 24th January, 1986 and 24th January, 1986 (annexures 1 and 4 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed. Meanwhile we further direct that until disposal of the matter by the Sales Tax Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow, no order shall be passed in petitioner s cases by Sri M.U. Khan, the Sales Tax Officer, Mahoba, respondent No. 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours on payment of usual charges. Petition disposed accordingly.
-
1986 (3) TMI 317 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dealer-petitioner might have rectified. The photostat copy of the order received by the dealer-assessee was filed along with the memo of appeal. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and keeping in view of the provisions of rule 33 of the Rules, we are of opinion that the Single Member of the Sales Tax Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground, on which he did as, the photostat copy of the original order received by the petitioner from the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Merta City, was filed with the memo of appeal. The order dismissing the appeal cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The result is that the revision is allowed, the order dated October 16, 1985 of the Sales Tax Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 11/85/Nagaur is set aside and the case is sent back to the Sales Tax Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 316 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and so on. It also prints the annual reports and balance sheets of big public Ltd. companies besides printing booklets about Civilization, Women Today and Wildlife, etc., in our country and elsewhere. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the booklets, brochures and annual reports printed for sale by the assessee squarely fell within the word books both in the exempted item contained in the Punjab Act and the Haryana Act. Accordingly, with regard to the aforesaid three items, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department and the G.S.T.R. Nos. 16 to 22 of 1983 stand disposed of. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 498 of 1983 and 3483 and 3484 of 1984 are allowed to the extent that the levy of sales tax on booklets, brochures and annual reports printed and sold by the assessee is hereby quashed. The assessee would be entitled to refund of the tax in pursuance of this order. The parties, are however, left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.
-
1986 (3) TMI 315 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... based on the facts involved in the said cases. Therefore, I am of the opinion that applying the ratio of this Court in the two decisions reported in Bangalore Motor Accessories v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1981 47 STC 54 and Mulgund and Co. v. State of Karnataka 1984 55 STC 339, the order of the revising authority, the Deputy Commissioner, was one which could be rectified under section 25A of the Act, in order to bring it in conformity with the law laid down down by this Court subsequent to that order. Therefore, on the facts of the case and having regard to the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The order made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore City Division, Bangalore, dated 15th March, 1982 (annexure D), is set aside and the order of the assessing officer restored. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 314 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... item 18 it is not necessary to grapple further with that question. The words which follow electrical goods in that item go to show that even electrical plant and equipment and their accessories were within the concept of electrical goods as envisaged by the draftsman. For, otherwise, there was no need to expressly exclude them. It seems, therefore, that the draftsman had a very wide concept of electrical goods or intended those words to have a wider concept than in common parlance. Since plant and equipment come within that concept, there can be no doubt that an electric furnace, whether it be regarded as a plant or equipment , is within the meaning of electrical goods . An electric furnace is, true, covered by item 18. For these reasons, I would answer the question referred in the affirmative. The costs of this reference will be paid by M/s. Simplicity Engineers to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. JAIN, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (3) TMI 313 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion of liability was made. The State has no right to collect or retain unauthorised taxes or illegal taxes. Unless the taxes are lawfully and properly collected, the State cannot retain such taxes. If the taxes are realised which are not due such taxes have to be refunded. The taxes which were collected from the petitioner in this case was for the pre-registration period and, therefore, the question of the dealer collecting taxes from its customers did not arise. In this case the liability was of the dealer and the dealer has to pay the taxes demanded by the tax officer, he could not pass the liability to its customers. He is, therefore, entitled to demand refund of the taxes which were not due at all but realised by the State. In that view of the matter the rule is made absolute. Let appropriate writs be issued. The respondents are directed to refund the tax collected along with interest as admissible within 8 weeks from the communication of this order. Rule made absolute.
-
1986 (3) TMI 312 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rvailing duty on articles imported from outside the State to make the duty in conformity with the duty imposed on similar articles produced within the State. In the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, there cannot be any doubt that the notification, exhibit P1, exempting the goods produced within the State from sales tax is clearly violative of article 301 of the Constitution. Since the challenge is confined to the exemption from sales tax on carbon black manufactured within the State and sold for the purpose of manufacturing tyres within the State, we quash exhibit P1 in O.P. Nos. 3301 and 3302 of 1984 in so far as it relates to carbon black. 7.. The prayer for quashing exhibits P2 and P3 is rejected for the reasons stated above. O.P. Nos. 3301 and 3302 of 1984 are allowed to the above extent and dismissed in other respects. O.P. No. 4273 of 1984 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions Partly allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 311 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from the decision of the Patna High Court for reasons set out earlier. 25.. In the premises, the relevant law applicable in the present case at the time when the Commissioner issued notice of suo motu revision, was the period of limitation in force on that day, i.e., section 57 as amended on 1st May, 1970 (3rd amendment). The Commissioner was, therefore, required to issue a notice within 3 years of the communication of the assessment order. In the present case the assessment order was passed on 20th April, 1967. There is no dispute that the notice of the Commissioner, which is dated 14th March, 1972, is beyond the period prescribed under the 3rd amendment to section 57. It is therefore time-barred. 26.. In the premises we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the department. The respondents will pay to the applicants costs of the reference. The deposit of Rs. 100 made by the assessee to be refunded to the assessee. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (3) TMI 310 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act as it was in force from 1st July, 1965, to 30th April, 1970. Under the provisions of section 57 during the aforesaid period the Commissioner could suo motu revise an order within 5 years from the date of the order. In the present case the assessment order is of 11th October, 1966. The notice of revision is of 5th December, 1969, and the order in revision is passed on 23rd January, 1970. The revision proceedings were completed within 5 years of the assessment order and even before the 3rd amendment of section 57 came into operation. The revision proceedings are, therefore, within the period of limitation as in existence at the relevant time. The amended provisions of section 57 which came into force on 1st May, 1970, have no application in this case. 4.. In the premises the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. The respondents to pay to the applicant costs of the reference. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1986 (3) TMI 309 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export , as required by sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act. Now that we have found that the raw cashew purchased is different from the cashew kernel exported, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the purchases were in pursuance to agreements or orders for export. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the purchase turnover of raw cashew is not exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the reason of the exemption admissible under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We set aside the orders of the Tribunal, deleting the purchase turnover of raw cashew-nuts from the taxable turnover of the respective assessees, and direct the addition of the same as exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The tax revision cases are allowed as indicated above. We make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 308 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd incidental transactions and it is no longer open to the petitioner to contend that the sale of the goods was not incidental to its business. It is not necessary that a transaction for purpose of attracting charging section of the Act should always involve buying and selling, vide observations of Sri Jaganmohan Reddy, J., in Burma Shell case in 1973 31 STC 426 at page 433 (SC). In the nature of business of the insurance company the sale of the goods in question has to be treated as a transaction incidental to its business and the CTO rightly called upon the petitioner to register itself as dealer under the K.S.T. Act so that it may be subjected to tax under the Act in respect of the sale of the goods. The order made by the CTO under section 10 of the Act during the pendency of the writ petition on the 28th January, 1983, which is produced as annexure F, is also upheld. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the rule issued is discharged. Writ petition dismissed.
........
|
