|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 284 Records
-
1986 (7) TMI 398
... ...
... ... ..... d held that there was no other way of doing this business, which means that on truthful disclosure from time to time to Reserve Bank of India, it ought to have granted approval as done in other instances and to similarly placed business enterprises. Learned Counsel for the appellant would emphasise that in such circumstances, invariably the permission is being granted, but unfortunately, in these three instances, the same yardstick had not been applied. Evidently, realising that the appellant could not have transacted these matters otherwise, only nominal penalty had been imposed. Having conceded this point, the Tribunal was not in order in imposing even the reduced penalty. Hence, when the amounts disbursed belonged to foreign ship owners/agents, and the Tribunal having found that there was no other way of doing this business and as appellant has made timely disclosures to Reserve Bank of India, the appellant succeeds. 7. It is in this view, this appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
1986 (7) TMI 397
... ...
... ... ..... ding party. Gopi Chand was admittedly posted at the Police Station. Palampur, on that date and it is not very convincing that the meeting between two of them took place in the manner deposed to by H. C. Bhagwan Singh. Be that as it may. one thing which stands out like a sore thumb is the flagrant violation of law, as discussed above. After all why the Police Officers or other persons placed in such a situation should shirk to implement and comply with the express provisions of law laid down by the Legislature ? In these circumstances, the entire prosecution case becomes somewhat fishy and unfit to be acted upon. In other words, non compliance of law discussed above would give rise to doubt about the accuracy of the prosecution case and the benefit of this doubt has to given to the accused. In view of the above observations, this revision petition is accepted and the order of conviction against the petitioner accused set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioner are discharged.
-
1986 (7) TMI 396
... ...
... ... ..... ounsel for the assessee-applicant and Sri P. K. Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. In view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Jalpal Chand Goyal v. Commissioner Sales Tax, 1986 STR 361, the assessee applicant is not required under the law to give any notice regarding the closure or start of the brick-kiln. Since the Tribunal in the instant case has taken a contrary view I think that the order passed by it cannot be sustained and the question raised are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the proposition laid down by this Court in M/s. Jaipal Chand Goel (supra) and also the observations made above. However, there will be no order as to costs. 5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under Section 11 (8) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act.
-
1986 (7) TMI 395
... ...
... ... ..... 120.) In none ot these decisions the relevant passage from D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 SC 130, was considered. Nor was the aspect regarding prospective operation considered on principle. The High Court considered it shocking and was carried away by the fact that an employee who retired even one day before the enforcement of the upward revision would not get the benefit if the specified date of enforcement was not effaced by striking down the relevant provision. But in all cases of prospective operation it would be so. Just as one who files a suit even one day after the expiry of limitation would lose his right to sue, one who retires even a day prior to enforcement of the upward revision would not get the benefit. This cannot be helped, there is nothing shocking in it unless one can say legislation can never be made prospective, and nothing turns on it. These are the reasons which impelled us to dismiss the Special Leave Petition on 18 July, 1986. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 394
... ...
... ... ..... anungo & Co. v. The Collector of Customs no right exists in appellant in adjudication proceedings to require such persons to be cross-examined. 10. Both the authorities have relied upon the statements given by appellant and Veerappan, and the appellant had furnished the name and address of his employer. There is no explanation forthcoming from respondents as to why no action was taken against the named person, and what steps were taken to find out as to whether such a person was carrying on business at No. 185, Angappan Naicken Street or not. It is by leaving out the persons who are mainly responsible for commission of these offences, such contraventions go unabated. This Court expresses its displeasure that in spite of clear disclosure about a person, who was mainly responsible for what had happened, such a person had been left out from being proceeded against. 11. As none of the points involve any error of law substantial in nature, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
1986 (7) TMI 393
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has made no application to the Incometax Officer for reduction or waiver of the interest under sub-s. (8) of s. 139 or under s. 215 no question arises of the relevant authority having denied improperly a reduction or waiver of the interest and that being so, no revision petition can be maintained in that regard by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax. In the result we affirm the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the revision petitions but on grounds different from those adopted by the Commissioner. We leave it open to the assessee to apply to the Income-tax Officer for waiver or reduction of interest under sub-s. (8) of s. 139 and under s. 215 of the Income Tax Act. If the assessee does so within six weeks from today, the Income-tax Officer will dispose of the applications on the merits expeditiously. Subject to the aforesaid observations the appeals are dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 391
... ...
... ... ..... it petitioner-company is one such company who have had established a cement factory at Ippalnegaon village in Asifabad taluk, Adilabad district. They have invested about Rs. 5.9 crores of capital for the factory. They commenced production on March 17, 1983. It is on that premise the company claims exemption for five years from sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. In our view, the company is enforcing an accrued right under the relevant notification. Since we understood this is accrued right, it is in no way affected by the amendment brought about on March 2, 1982, in G.O. Ms. No. 302. The company commenced production from March 17, 1983, therefore, is entitled to the exemption from the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, under G.O. 606 dated April 9, 1981. No other point has been argued in this writ petition by the learned Government Pleader. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 500. Writ petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 390
... ...
... ... ..... gment of the Board of Revenue will be binding on the authorities. Shri Mehta has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hindustan Radiators 1986 62 STC 374 (1985) 2 WLN 752 and has submitted that in view of the said judgment caustic soda, as it is entered as raw material in the registration certificates of the appellants, must be treated as raw material and penalty could not be imposed under section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In our opinion it is open to the appellants to rely upon the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the appeals before the appellate authority and as regards the judgment of the Board of Revenue we find that the learned single Judge has considered the same and has pointed out that the said judgment has no application to the case of the appellants as it related to hosiery industry. We find no merit in these special appeals and they are, therefore, dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 389
... ...
... ... ..... se the validity of sections 28(6) and 29(3) of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act has been upheld as necessary and essential provisions for regulating and enforcing a fiscal enactment like the Sales Tax Act. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench. As Burke said, it is hard to tax and also to please as it is difficult to love and to be wise. But the burden of modern civilization must be borne by the system of levy of taxes. There is, therefore, no escape from paying taxes. That is the reason why courts will be most reluctant to interfere in this area of the State activity particularly in favour of these open sales tax evaders and on the unspecified ground of article 14. Following that judgment of the Division Bench, we dismiss this writ petition with costs. The commercial tax authorities will now initiate expeditiously confiscation and penalty proceedings and complete them as expeditiously as possible. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 388
... ...
... ... ..... s bad cannot be accepted. Facts as well as law will have to be investigated. There is no reason why the Assistant Commissioner should not investigate it. Without deciding the question finally it may be stated that the wellknown principle is that the power to grant a certificate includes the power to cancel the certificate. Moreover, it is well-settled that fraud unravels everything. If a certificate is obtained by misrepresentation of facts and by practising duplicity, I am unable to hold that the respondents are entirely powerless in the matter. However, I make it clear that I am not expressing any final opinion on the merit of the petitioner s case, that this is not a case where the show cause notice should be quashed in limine. The writ petition is dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to agitate all the questions in accordance with law before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (North) Circle. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 387
... ...
... ... ..... ear 1969. The provision of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be made applicable to these transactions. The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that the purchases of soap stone by the assessee from the local dealers were purchases in the course of export and no purchase tax was leviable from the assessee on the turnover of Rs. 4,47,235.25 relating to the said purchases. The question of law stated in the application must therefore, be decided in favour of the Revenue and it must be held that the Board of Revenue was not justified in holding that no purchase tax is leviable on Rs. 4,47,235.25 being a purchase in the course of export. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 30th July 1975, is therefore, set aside and the orders passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) are restored. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 386
... ...
... ... ..... s as well as by its generally accepted popular connotation cloth is woven, knitted or felted material which is pliable and is capable of being wrapped, folded or wound around. It need not necessarily be material suitable for making garments because there can be cloth suitable only for industrial purpose but nevertheless it must possess the basic feature of pliability. Hard and thick material which cannot be wrapped or wound around cannot be regarded as cloth . Hair belting is a woven fabric and it is not disputed that it can be wound round. It is cloth suitable for industrial purposes only. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that the product in question was covered under entry No. 6 of Schedule I of the Act. 4.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this Court is in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (7) TMI 385
... ...
... ... ..... he injury complained of in the negative. The Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mill s case 1976 38 STC 113 (SC) AIR 1977 SC 2086 affirmed the High Court s decision that there was no error apparent on the face of the record as question whether tyre cord fabric could be described as a fabric or merely cord pretending to pass off as a textile fabric was a technical question of which two views could be possible and it required careful consideration of the technical process of manufacturing. As indicated by us there is no dispute on facts. We have proceeded on the facts found by the sales tax authorities. The decision thus in Delhi Cloth and General Mill s case 1976 38 STC 113 (SC) AIR 1977 SC 2086 is not helpful. The result is that this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Sales Tax Officer is quashed. The notices for assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 are also quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to one set of costs. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 384
... ...
... ... ..... te sales tax law of the State, under which the tax is levied for the sale or purchase of the goods or the commodity, in question. Looked at from the angle, we have no doubt, that the appropriate sales tax law of the State, of which tax is levied, is the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Kerala Additional Sales Tax Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1978), does not levy sales tax on the sale or purchase of the goods or commodity, in question. We hold that the provisions of Act 20 of 1978 are inapplicable to a situation, where inter-State sales are to be taxed under section 8 or section 8(2A) or section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 8.. We declare that the levy of additional sales tax under Act 20 of 1978, on inter-State sales which are taxable under section 8 of that Act, is unauthorised and illegal. We concur with the learned single Judge in his conclusions. We affirm the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is without force. It is dismissed with costs. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 383
... ...
... ... ..... y on the State Legislature to exempt such purchase of raw material by the petitioners from payment of tax. The State Legislature in its wisdom has exempted the purchase of raw material from the payment of tax where the manufactured goods are disposed of in the course of export out of the territory of India within the meaning of only sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In other words, the State Legislature has not allowed exemption from the payment of tax on the purchase of raw material which is used for the manufacture of goods which are disposed of in terms of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners thus cannot justifiably claim the exemption from the payment of purchase tax on the purchase of raw material which was used for the manufacture of goods disposed of in terms of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the result, all the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (7) TMI 382
... ...
... ... ..... ore, these writ petitions are partly allowed, i.e., to the extent that it gives retrospective effect to the Maharashtra Act No. 15 of 1985, with effect from 24th May, 1986, so far as the edible oil units who have validly enjoyed the benefits under the Ordinance are concerned. As already held the said Act shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st August, 1985, qua these edible oil units. All other challenges raised stand negatived and rejected. Hence rule is made partly absolute in all these writ petitions. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions orally prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Since we have decided the question raised before us on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in our view, this is not a fit case wherein such a leave should be granted. Hence leave refused. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 381
... ...
... ... ..... m its reply in the return, we could ascertain as to whether imposition of tax was according to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that there was no allegation to that effect in the petition. The hearing of the petition was adjourned by this Court a number of times at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and no attempt was made to amend the petition by raising a ground now sought to be raised. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise a ground for the first time in hearing when that ground was neither urged before the assessing authorities and the Commissioner nor was taken in the writ petition. No case has thus been made out for grant of any relief to the petitioner. 7.. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim orders passed on 8th February, 1984, and 13th September, 1984, are vacated. Counsel s fees Rs. 250 (two hundred and fifty), if certified. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 380
... ...
... ... ..... ed out above that the Tribunal has held as a fact that the applicant could know on 20th March, 1969 by perusing the cause list that the date was fixed for order on 7th April, 1969. The Tribunal has also held as a fact that the Deputy Commissioner passed order on 20th March, 1969 fixing the case for orders on 7th April, 1969 immediately after the arguments were heard and so the Tribunal took the view that the applicant could know the date on 20th March, 1969. Under such circumstances the Tribunal has given findings of fact against the petitioner and the findings of fact are binding on this Court. 9.. In view of my findings above, I hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the petition for revision was barred by limitation. The question is, therefore, answered against the petitioner and in favour of the opposite party. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. UDAY SINHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1986 (7) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... etitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as the same was not asked for by the petitioner? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding in regard to the alleged transactions is vitiated in law? 9.. We accordingly direct the Tribunal to make a reference, stating the questions of law referred to above. 10.. As regards Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 294 of 1984, the question of law, in our opinion, which arises out of the Tribunal s order is the following Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in maintaining the penalty only on the basis of findings in assessment proceedings without taking separate proceedings for penalty and discharging the burden of proof which lay on the department? 11.. Accordingly in the said case, we direct the Tribunal to make a reference stating the aforesaid question of law. There shall, however, be no order as to the costs in both these cases. Applications allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 378
... ...
... ... ..... t, without making any further comments on the said argument I accept the submission made on behalf of the assessee and direct the assessing authority to revise the assessment order to the extent that tax payable by the assessee on the turnover of Rs. 22,000 with respect to the inter-State sale as determined by the sales tax authority shall be calculated at 3 per cent and not at 10 per cent. In the result, Sales Tax Revision No. 23 of 1981 fails and is dismissed. Sales Tax Revision No. 24 of 1981 is allowed in part while upholding the taxable turnover determined by the sales tax authorities. I direct the revising authority to revise the assessment order for the year 1973-74 (Central) to the extent the tax payable by the assessee on the turnover of Rs. 22,000 in respect of valuable sales shall be calculated at 3 per cent and not 10 per cent. In both the cases parties are directed to bear their own costs. S.T.R. No. 23 of 1981 dismissed and S.T.R. No. 24 of 1981 partly allowed.
........
|
