|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 237 Records
-
1986 (3) TMI 307 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion reported in Monika International, Varanasi v. Sales Tax Officer (SIB), Varanasi 1984 UPTC 22 and Om Silk Trading Company, Varanasi v. Sales Tax Officer (Mobile Unit), Varanasi 1984 UPTC 993. The aforesaid decisions were based on the basis of some circular as to what security should generally be asked in respect of certain goods. However, in the present case neither the petitioner placed any such circular before us nor made any reliance on any such circular. It is not known on the material of this case whether metallic polyester yarn is included or not in that circular and to what extent security could be asked. Thus, even this argument cannot be sustained for quashing the demand of security. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of opinion that no sustainable ground has been raised by the petitioner, which calls for any interference in the impugned order in the present proceedings. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but costs on parties. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 306 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... payment of penalty. Hence the right to levy penalty was retained while granting the extension. A conditional extension of time for payment of tax of this nature therefore does not protect a dealer against imposition of penalty. 18.. It is not necessary for us to examine the effect of delay in payment of tax even beyond the extended period. Even payment within the extended period is subject to penalty that may be levied, in view of the nature of the orders of extension. Hence payment beyond the extended period is, a fortiori, subject to the imposition of penalty. 19.. In the premises the question is answered as follows (i) For the first, third and fourth quarters of the period 1967-68 the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department. (ii) For the second quarter of the period 1967-68 the question is answered in negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1986 (3) TMI 305 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for an activity to amount to manufacture it must result in a different commercial article or commodity. In other words, it must not be a commodity which is commercially the same as it was before the activity was applied to it. The test, therefore, is that in order to ascertain whether the activity results in a commercially different commodity, it is irrelevant whether the result is produced by a mechanical or chemical process or otherwise. It is well evident from the narration of facts noticed above, the petitioner produces a commodity by refining the used mobil-oil which is commercially different from the one it was prior to the process the petitioner applied to the same. I am, therefore, satisfied that the mobil-oil produced by the petitioner for reuse is commercially different from the one purchased by it, i.e., used or waste mobil-oil. In the light of this, I find no merit in this petition and the same is thus dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 304 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Held, that:- The contract for supply of the cashew was only between the petitioner-Corporation and the foreign supplier and the allottees were not parties to the contract and there was no privity of contract between the foreign suppliers and the allottees and the privity of contract was only between the foreign suppliers and the Corporation. The licences in the instant case were issued to the Corporation with an express condition that the Corporation should be the owner of the goods imported under the licence up to the time of clearance through customs. There was no integral connection with the sale to the allottees and the import by the Corporation and the movement of the goods from the foreign countries was occasioned by the contract of purchase with the foreign suppliers by the Corporation and not by the contract of sale by the Corporation with the allottees.
-
1986 (3) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT
Appellant feeling aggrieved by the restrictions imposed on them by section 28-B of the Act and rule 87 of the Rules and the orders of assessment passed under the Act against them by the sales tax authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh - Held that:- It would meet the ends of justice if the cases of the appellants and petitioners are permitted to be dealt with accordingly. We give our approval to the said proposals and make an order accordingly. Any assessment made pursuant to the above orders shall not be open to question on the ground that it does not satisfy the period of limitation contained in section 21 of the Act. We also make it clear that any person who is aggrieved by the order of assessment may question it in appeal or revision as provided by the Act on all grounds except on the ground that it had been passed beyond time. We also direct that if any of the appellants or petitioners has, depending upon the pendency of these appeals or petitions, not filed any appeal or revision against any order passed under the Act, such appellant or petitioner may prefer such appeal or revision, as the case may be, on or before April 30, 1986, and if any such appeal or revision is filed it shall be disposed of by the concerned authority without raising any objection as to the period of limitation.
-
1986 (3) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the dealer could be declared non-taxable on sales of yarn for ₹ 8,70,810 which he made against III-A forms though the purchaser instead of selling the said yarn in the same condition consumed the same?
Whether certificate is "farzi" or not, or if there was any collusion on the part of selling dealer?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The facts and circumstances of this case, the question posed is academic because it has not been found by the appellate authority that neither the goods have been consumed by the purchasing dealer and not sold to the consumer in terms of the registration certificates furnished by the purchasing dealer, nor that the certificates were forged or fabricated.
It must be held that the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. Shankar Lal Chandra Prakash [1969 (7) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] was not correctly decided. In the premises the question reframed above must be answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer.
-
1986 (3) TMI 296 - SUPREME COURT
Restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The prohibition was not on the Parliament. But in the view we have taken on the first aspect of the matter and in view of the decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar [1968 (4) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Rattan Lal & Co. v. Assessing Authority [1968 (10) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is not necessary for us to discuss this aspect any further.
-
1986 (3) TMI 283 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... In accordance with rule 99, read with rule 24, of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, it is directed that the advertisement shall be made within a month from today in Form No. 48. The advertisement shall be published in the Official Gazette of the State of M. P, It shall also be advertised in the local daily newspapers Nayi Dunya (Hindi) and Free Press Journal (English) P. F. and the publication charges shall be deposited by the petitioner within a week from today. The contents of the said advertisement shall be drawn up by the Additional Registrar of this court in accordance with rule 25 of the said Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The petitioner shall also supply an envelope together with the registered address of the company or its principal place of business duly stamped in accordance with rule 28 of the said Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The Additional Registrar of this court shall proceed in accordance with this order as provided in the said Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
1986 (3) TMI 282 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... and take such action as it thinks fit. The official liquidator is directed to make an inventory of the said premises including any structures, plant and machinery therein with reference to the inventory, if any, already made at or about the time of handing over the possession. There will be no order as to costs. The official liquidator shall be entitled to retain his costs out of the assets in his hands which is assessed at Rs. 1,020. All parties concerned to act on the signed copy of the operative portion of the order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the more general question as to whether upon winding up of a company a lease, in which a substantial period is still outstanding, automatically comes to an end or not irrespective of any condition of any terms and conditions to that effect in the lease as it is not necessary for us to decide such question. This case has been decided by us only on the facts and circumstances of this case. S.K. Hazari J. mdash I agree.
-
1986 (3) TMI 269 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... taken by the accused, i.e., the petitioner, to the legality of the trial. Hence, it cannot be deemed to be an acquittal by legal fiction so as to operate as a bar to a subsequent prosecution. There is another way of looking at the matter, namely, that if, for reasons already stated, the previous order dated August 5, 1983, were held to be bad in law and nonest, the previous complaint will have to be restored and decided afresh culminating in acquittal/conviction of the petitioner. Needless to say, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional/inherent power, can examine the legality and propriety of even that order and make an appropriate order. So, looking at the matter from this angle too, the petitioner has to go through the trial. He cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of any merit and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on April 14, 1986, for further proceedings.
-
1986 (3) TMI 259 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Meetings and Proceedings - Declaration By person not holding beneficial interest in any share
-
1986 (3) TMI 251 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Inspection of books of account, etc., of companies ... ... ... ... ..... lf, within which the directors should comply and rectify the mistakes, is the criterion. The Assistant Registrar has no power to extend the time under the section. Therefore, if the directors did not comply with the demand within the period prescribed in the first notice, exhibit P-1, the offence must be deemed to have been committed and, therefore, limitation would start only from that date. The subsequent letters or the final letter given by the Assistant Registrar giving the opportunity to the directors to rectify the mistake will not extend the period of limitation. Therefore, I entirely agree with the learned Magistrate that the period of limitation starts from the expiry of the period mentioned in exhibit P-1 and the complaint is barred by limitation since admittedly the complaint is filed one year after the expiry of fifteen days time given under exhibit P-1. Therefore, the complaint has been rightly dismissed. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ication No. 94/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976. On hearing both sides, we observe that this exemption is applicable to metal jacketed dry batteries. As already stated in the preceding paragraph 2, Nickel Cadmium cells imported are rechargeable storage batteries and not dry batteries. The exemption is, therefore, not applicable to them. However, it appeared to us that since the cells were storage batteries, their assessment should have been under sub-item (2) of Item 31 of the Central Excise Tariff which attracted the lower rate of 20 - the same rate which the appellants had claimed in terms of the exemption notification. We put this to the learned representative of the department. He had no comments to make. The order that countervailing duty be re-assessed under Item 31(2) CET and consequential refund given to the appellants. 5 emsp Except for the above relief in countervailing duty in six of the Appeals No. 63, 325, 326, 327, 329 and 1098/85-B2, the appeals are otherwise rejected.
-
1986 (3) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Gold - Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... ave advanced their own reasons, we are of the opinion that an extremely serious view is not called for in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we order that the confiscation of the gold/gold ornaments be set aside as the same was admittedly covered by the vouchers and the transactions stand duly established and time-lag for not making the necessary entries in the record was not even a day but was in hours only. We also feel that a penalty imposed is somewhat excessive and a penalty of proper nature would serve the purpose obviously to keep the appellant firm careful and vigilant in future. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- only. 9. In the result, we partly accept this appeal, set aside the order with regard to confiscation of the seized gold/gold ornaments but uphold the imposition of penalty which is however, reduced to Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand only) for the reasons stated above. The impugned order of the Collector stands modified to the above extent.
-
1986 (3) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... f dictionary meanings but applying the commercial parlance test whether food colours are understood in the trade as Synthetic organic dye-stuff. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision given in the context of UP Sales Tax Law is more appropriately applicable to the present case when the Revenue seeks to classify food colours as Synthetic Organic Dyestuffs. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision (supra) and other materials like ISI sectional list, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the proper classification of the respondents rsquo products which are admittedly food colours should be not as synthetic organic dyestuffs under Tariff Item 14-D but under the residuary Item T.I. 68. We hold accordingly. 7. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the classification of the respondents rsquo product under Tariff Item 68 as held by the Collector (Appeals) though for reasons different from those found by the Collector (Appeals). 8. The appeal is thus dismissed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 236 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Replenishment licence and cash assistance ... ... ... ... ..... ing is not accepted by the Central Government in the policy of AM 1976-77. The declared policy insist on the supplies being made under the procedure of international competitive bidding and not otherwise. We are concerned here with the declared policy of the Central Government and to see whether the impugned orders have been made in consonance with that policy. 11. Considerable arguments have been addressed by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents committed an error of law in holding that the application of the petitioner was barred by time, particularly for the reason that the certificate issued by the Central Electricity Board was issued on November 25, 1978 and the claim was lodged by the petitioner on December 18, 1978 to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. In view of our opinion on the first point, we need not express on the question of limitation. 12. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (3) TMI 233 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Preventive detention ... ... ... ... ..... name. There is nothing to indicate that she has ever read them or was aware of the contents thereof. Surely, keeping in view her illiteracy which fact is not disputed, it cannot be said that she was maintaining an account, making payments to various parties in various forms, sending telegrams and talking to her son at Dubai on telephone. None of these aspects has been taken into consideration by the detaining authority. 15. emsp In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of detention suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. This is particularly so in view of the fact that some of the most relevant documents were not considered as they were characterised as irrelevant. We are of the firm opinion that there is absolutely no justification in raising an inference about the involvement of the detenu on the basis of this material. We, therefore, accept this petition, quash the impugned detention order and direct that the detenu be released forthwith.
-
1986 (3) TMI 230 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the relief granted by the High Courts should have been granted at all, not whether it should be enhanced?
Held that:- The date, October 18, 1985, is a critical date, because for the first time diamond exporters can be said to have been warned that the Court could possibly take a different view from that prevailing hitherto. Meanwhile, as we have said, some of the diamond exporters had already irretrievably committed themselves by opening and establishing irrevocable Letters of Credit. We think it appropriate that those diamond exporters who were granted Additional Licences under the Import Policy 1978-79 and had opened and established irrevocable Letters of Credit before October 18, 1985 should be permitted, notwithstanding the construction we have placed on the order dated April 18, 1985 of the Court, to clear the goods imported, or to be imported, by them pursuant to such irrevocable Letters of Credit. In other words, all imports effected pursuant to such Letters of Credit should be deemed to have been legally and properly made, and should entail no adverse consequences whatsoever. In taking this view we are impressed by the broad principles of justice, equity and fair play and by the need to avoid undeserved hardship, and we are not persuaded to the contrary by legal technicalities. We may point out that the validity of principle has been recognised in Paragraph 35(3) of the Import Policy 1985-88 itself, where while declaring that Additional Licences issued to Export Houses in the preceding licencing year or earlier shall cease to be valid for the import of items of spares appearing in certain Appendices, including Appendix 3, of the Import Policy for the licencing year an exception has been carved out insofar that “these restrictions will not apply to the extent the licence holders have made firm commitments by irrevocable Letters of Credit opened and established.....before 1st April, 1985”, the date when the Import Policy 1985-88 came into force.
Also diamond exporters who pursuant to the issue of Additional Licences under the Import Policy 1978-79 have opened and established irrevocable Letters of Credit on or after October 18, 1985 will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.
-
1986 (3) TMI 226 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
Valuation - Sales tax deductible for determination of assessable value based on invoice price
-
1986 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ication 17/82 was clarificatory and hence should be given retrospective effect, it has to be pointed out that such an interpretation cannot be valid unless the Notification itself explicitly provides for such an application, in the light of the well settled law that Notification would have only prospective application. Regarding further argument that the exemption was in implementation of the trade Expansion and Economic Cooperation Agreement which had continued from 1969 under the old Indian Customs Tariff, and could not be denied under the CTA, it has been shown that the coverage of IC Engines under 72(a), 75 and 76 ICT and parts thereof under 72(3) and 75(10) ICT was not exactly similar to the coverage under Heading 84.06 CTA. In the result, the orders in appeal Nos. C3/1418A1-A38/84 and C3/821/84 dated 25.7.85 are set aside and the order in appeal No. 489/1982 dated 28-12-82 is upheld. The appeals of the Collector are allowed and the appeal filed by M/s. TAFE is rejected.
........
|
