|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 284 Records
-
1986 (7) TMI 377 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e notice of the assessing authority can be subjected to tax by the assessing authority. Counsel for the assessee has not controverted the proposition of law raised on behalf of the counsel for the Revenue, which is strengthened by the aforesaid decision of this Court but the main emphasis of the counsel for the assessee in the case is that the notice dated 11th September, 1979 was a fresh notice under section 21 of the Act inasmuch as the original notice issued on 23rd March, 1979 came to an end on 30th August, 1979 on which date the case was finally closed. Since I have already held that the notice dated 23rd March, 1979 did not come to an end on 30th August, 1979, the contention of the assessee that notice dated 11th September, 1979 was a fresh notice under section 21 of the Act cannot be accepted. No other point has been pressed for consideration. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 376 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... confessed before the sales tax authorities that he was a partner in the said firm. The department did not produce the diary allegedly recovered from the possession of Ram Singh, plaintiff. In the absence of that evidence, the courts below found that if that diary had been produced it would have shown that the plaintiff had no concern with the business called Messrs. Darshan Singh Ram Singh. It has also been observed by the lower appellate court that the evidence shows that Ram Singh did not appear at any stage before the sales tax authorities to challenge the action on merits and never represented that he had any interest in the business known as Messrs. Darshan Singh Ram Singh. This being a finding of fact could not be challenged in second appeal. Once it is found that the plaintiff had nothing to do with the assessee-firm, he could not be held liable for the recovery in question. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... there was a contract of sale between the head office and the purchasers and the goods moved out of the State in pursuance of the contract of sale between the head office and the purchasers. These are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction and the learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to place any material which may indicate that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on no evidence or based on irrelevant consideration and as such the order passed by it deserves to be sustained. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of the Tribunal I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee made no inter-State sales in the years under consideration and the stock transfers declared by it were really in the nature of branch transfers. In the result the revisions fail and are accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions rejected.
-
1986 (7) TMI 374 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent of the Central Act 28 of 1969, and after perusing exhibit B. 2 and B. 2 counters filed by the State. As stated above, this Court has held that the proportionate tax collected has to be refunded. In view of exhibit B. 3 orders of this Court, the claim of the respondent for the refund of the tax paid to the appellant is not maintainable since it was not agitated at a higher forum. The observations and the findings of the lower appellate court that the assessment was validated and that the appellant is bound to repay the amount to the respondent are not based on facts in view of the orders of this Court in exhibit B. 3. Under the circumstances, since the respondent has not filed an appeal against the orders of this Court, the refund claimed by the respondent is not maintainable and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court have to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The second appeal is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 373 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nterlocutory order passed by the appellate authority during the pendency of an appeal in a revision filed against the final order of the appellate authority. In my opinion, since the Tribunal did not permit the applicantassessee to raise the said point, much prejudice has been caused to it. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal should be directed to decide the appeal afresh after permitting the assessee to raise the question of exemption for the purchases made in the course of inter-State trade on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals. No other point has been pressed for consideration. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition partly allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 372 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o this revision, which clearly indicates that the assessee never wanted to adduce additional evidence but it simply wanted the Tribunal to peruse the accounts which had already been shown by it during the regular assessment proceedings. Mr. Jain appearing for the Revenue on the contrary has not been able to support the order passed by the Tribunal and after hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. 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 observations made above and direct the Sales Tax Officer concerned to pass a fresh assessment order in proceedings under section 21 of the Act after perusing the original accounts. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 371 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee could not claim any benefit on the basis of form 3-Kha issued by the purchasing dealer. It may be true that nuts and bolts ceased to exist in the list of goods and the assessee is supposed to have knowledge about the notification and relevant laws and the ignorance of the said laws may not exonerate the assessee from the liability but since in the instant case the Tribunal has not adverted itself to the provisions of section 3-B of the Act according to which the purchasing dealer should have been proceeded with, I think the matter has not been decided in its true perspective and requires reconsideration. 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 keeping in view the provisions of section 3-B of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 370 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1986 63 STC 246 (All.) 1986 UPTC 139 a learned single judge has held that an insurance company is, in respect of sale of such totally damaged vehicles, not a dealer within the meaning of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and cannot be made liable for sales tax. Following that decision I hold that in respect of the transaction of sale of scrap vehicles the applicants, insurance companies, cannot be treated as dealers of such transaction and cannot be subjected to sales tax. In the result all the four revisions succeed and are allowed. The orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as that of the subordinate sales tax authorities, copies whereof have been annexed in these revisions, are quashed. The sales tax authorities are further directed to refund the amounts realised by them from the applicants in pursuance of the assessment orders which have been quashed by me. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal. The questions, first, whether September 12, 1979, was the first date of hearing and secondly, whether the assessee was required to produce the books of account before the assessing authority on September 12, 1979, or on a subsequent date are pure questions of fact which cannot possibly be adjudicated upon in proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is well-settled that only the mistakes which are apparent on the record can be rectified on an application, under section 22 of the Act, made by a party and no controversial facts can be gone into. Since in the instant case the facts are disputed between the parties as to whether September 12, 1979, was the first date of hearing or not, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 22 of the Act. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 368 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ht of the observations made in the case of Kumar Fuels v. State of U.P. 1986 63 SIC 467 (All.) 1986 UPTC 357. It is made clear that the Tribunal will allow the respondent-assessee to file the original eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries, which shall consider the same in recording a finding whether the assessee was a new unit or not. In case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the eligibility certificate was issued to the respondent-assessee by the Director of Industries, it would grant exemption to the respondent permissible to it under the law. In the result, the revision succeeds in part and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh in the light of the observations made above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition Partly allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uest of the assessee. It is true, in view of the facts of the instant case, that no duty was cast upon the Tribunal to intimate about the hearing of the appeal but in the instant case the Tribunal has not recorded any finding that the assessee had any knowledge of hearing of the appeal. In the absence of the said finding I am of the opinion that the principle of natural justice does require that the assessee must have intimation of hearing of the appeal before any liability, specially the tax, is fastened. Since the assessee has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the assessee and the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 366 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is apparent that the assessee made purchases on behalf of ex-U.P. principals and therefore, rightly claimed the exemption. It was not justified in remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to scrutinise the date of despatches which was not even disputed by the assessing authority. Once the Tribunal itself recorded a positive finding that the purchases made by the assessee were on behalf of the ex-U.P. principal, there was no room left for disallowing the claim of the assessee. In view of the said fact, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh treating the purchases made by the assessee for its ex-U.P. principals. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned, as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 365 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the firm is not in a position to pay the tax imposed on the firm. The turnovers fixed should be reduced. After hearing counsel for the parties and also taking in view the facts of the case I am of the opinion that the turnovers fixed by the authorities in respect of assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 deserve to be reduced but no interference is called for in respect of the turnover for the assessment year 1980-81. In the result the revisions in respect of assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 are allowed in part. The turnover for the assessment year 1978-79 is reduced from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 30,000 and that of the assessment year 1979-80 is reduced from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000. The order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside. The revision in respect of assessment year 1980-81 is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 364 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the decision of this Court in Padam Chand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1986 62 STC 195 1985 UPTC 331 the assessee is entitled to a notice by the Sales Tax Officer before passing a provisional assessment order. Since in the instant case the Sales Tax Officer has not issued notice to the assessee before passing the provisional assessment order, the order passed by him cannot be sustained. Consequently the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the Tribunal are also liable to be quashed. 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 and while doing so it will send the case back to the assessing authority who will pass fresh assessment order after giving notice to the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs. 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. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 363 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... where the assessee does not allow the Surveying Officer, at the time of survey, to verify the cash in his till it creates a suspicion in his mind that the money in the till was not in accordance with the accounts maintained by the assessee and rejected the books of account. In view of the said fact, I am of the opinion that the books of account of the assessee could be rejected on the ground that the assessee did not allow the Surveying Officer to count the cash in the till at the time of survey dated 16th July, 1977. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards the quantum of turnover Mr. Lal has not been able to point out any material which may indicate that the turnover is either excessive or arbitrary. No other question has been raised which may require consideration by this Court in the instant revision. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 362 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emoval of the goods from the brewery would not form part of the turnover of the manufacturer. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the two later decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it had been categorically laid down that the primary responsibility to pay excise duty was on the manufacturer and though it was paid directly to the Government by a purchaser, still it formed part of the turnover of the manufacturer. We do not, therefore, find any reason to entertain this writ petition to the file particularly in view of the fact that it is only directed against the show cause notice issued by the first respondent. The counsel for the petitioner made a request that all further proceedings before the first respondent pursuant to the show cause notice may be stayed. We do not find any justification for staying the further proceedings before the first respondent. In that view, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Writ Petition dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 361 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax v. Rajjulal Motilal). 27.. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondents, annexure P-3, annexure-P5, annexure-P7 and annexure-P9, are quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to respondent No. 3, the assessing authority, to assess and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions regarding the plea of exemption in annexure-P2 for the relevant period as also the exemptions claimed regarding the inter-State sales. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as also the lapse on the part of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner is not entitled to claim his own costs, but he is bound to pay costs of the respondents. Counsel s fee Rs. 750 (seven hundred and fifty). The petitioner shall deposit the costs of the respondents in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 360 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... losing stock in one year shall continue to be part of the total turnover for the subsequent years until they are brought to tax. 7.. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that these tax revision cases are without merit. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. We dismiss these tax revision cases with costs. 8.. In T.R.C. No. 127 of 1984, on substantially the same grounds, the Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter to the assessing authority. Counsel for the Revenue did not argue that a different principle will apply in this case. If that be so, in the light of our decision aforesaid, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in ordering a remit in T.A. No. 352 of 1982. It should have been held that the closing stock which was sought to be taxed is not exigible to tax. We hold so. The order of remit was unnecessary in the circumstances. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to counsel for the parties, on usual terms. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and those who buy raw material within the State, was no basis to say that the provision is violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution. In view of this decision whether the provision in respect of the period earlier to 1st April, 1978, is violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution itself is doubtful. However, we consider it unnecessary to examine and pronounce upon it as the assessment orders (annexures A, B and C) which constituted the basis for the petitioner to challenge the validity of the provision are all subsequent to 1st April, 1978. 13.. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question set out first as follows Section 5(4) read with item 2 of the Fourth Schedule read with explanation II thereto of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is not violative of article 304(a) of the Constitution of India. 14.. In the result, we make the following order (i) Rule discharged. (ii) The writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 1,000. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 358 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n it had been clearly stated that the chicory powder manufactured by the appellants was free of duty. As the learned Counsel pleaded, the appellants should have continued to pay duty but for this letter and, in that instance, would have been collecting the duty from their customers and passing it on to the Department. They had not done so because of the letter of the Collector. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that, in view of these peculiar facts, the demand for payment of duty could be enforced from the date of the show cause notice (29-2-1980) and not for any earlier period. 16. In view of the above conclusions, the appeal of M/s. Radio Electronics (Appeal No. 1073/81-D) is dismissed. The appeal of M/s. Eagle Chicory (Firm) (Appeal No. 1071 of 81-D) is allowed and the orders of the lower authorities (which related to the recovery of duty for the period prior to 29-2-1980) are set aside, making it clear that duty under Tariff Item 68 was payable on and from 29-2-1980.
........
|
