|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 315 Records
-
1987 (1) TMI 465 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as the Tribunal. A Division Bench decision of this Court in 1987 64 STC 372 (1986) 16 STL 139 (Raj) (Commercial Taxes Officer v. Lila Brothers) itself supports this conclusion by indicating that while dealing with a similar entry the department itself took the stand that spare parts which were supplied along with the tractor at the time of purchase of the tractor without charging for these items separately are treated as covered by the entry tractors and spare parts thereof . There is thus no reason to accept the contrary stand taken by the department in the present case. From the result of the aforesaid discussion it follows that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that sales tax was chargeable at the rate of 7 per cent in accordance with the residuary entry No. 79 instead of at the rate of 2 per cent according to the aforesaid entry No. 8. The revision is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 464 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntative of M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd. and it is through him that the vehicles are delivered and demand drafts are collected. The particulars which are being sought from the customers may be collected from the authorised representative and the purpose of the State will be fulfilled. In the premises aforesaid, it is held that rule 62-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules introduced by the notification dated 31st October, 1986, prescribing a declaration form No. ST-18 and insisting on production of the said form at check post in Rajasthan where scooters are sent by petitioner No. 2 from Kanpur to the customers in Rajasthan who are purchasing them in the course of interState transactions is declared ultra vires. A writ is, therefore, issued declaring rule 62-A and the notification dated 5th November, 1986, by the State Government ultra vires. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 463 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from which it was made, provided the woollen mix is not less than 40 per cent by weight. The admitted facts show that that was the position in the present case. See also the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka 1986 63 STC 239 and Atul Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1986 63 STC 322 and by this Court in Kesavan and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax 1976 37 STC 221, Manager, Pulpally Devaswom v. State of Kerala 1977 40 STC 350 and Radha s Fancy Piece Goods Merchants v. State of Kerala 1981 48 STC 361. 5.. In the circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal and the authorities below wrongly held that the turnover representing the sale value of carpets sold by the petitioner-assessee to the Air India for the relevant assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 did not fall within entry 7 of the Third Schedule to the Act. The revision petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 462 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l has not been defined in the Act. In Webster s Dictionary, its meaning is given as to hide or to put out of sight, to keep from another s knowledge. In Babulal Agarwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1987 66 STC 164 1986 CTJ 286, a Division Bench of this Court overruled the contention that as the return was not filed no penalty could be imposed under section 43(1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out any authority to the contrary. We see no cogent reason for taking a view different from that taken in 1987 66 STC 164 (MP) 1986 CTJ 286 (Babulal Agarwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax). In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that penalty is imposable under section 43(1) of the Act even when no return for the relevant period is filed by the assessee. 5.. Reference answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (1) TMI 461 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the said notification was in force at the material time. The expression cereal has not been defined in the Act. It connotes any grain used for food. Soyabean is undoubtedly used for food. Any particular species of grain cannot be excluded from the category of grain merely because it is capable of being used as an oil-seed as well. The Board seems to be of the opinion that under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as soyabean has been included in the category of oil-seeds, it would cease to be cereal. There is no justification for coming to that conclusion. In our opinion, the Board was not justified in holding that husk of soyabean was not exempt from tax as it was not covered by the notification dated 7th April, 1967. 6.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this Court is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (1) TMI 460 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under the impugned order the Sales Tax Tribunal has stated that the import was of nariyal jharu and other jharus. Since the facts are not clear from the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal to determine as to whether the dealer dealt with in seenk jharu only. In case it is so, then the case of the dealer is correct in law that the jharu made of seenks are classified items. In case it is found that factually the position is different, then it is open to the Tribunal to take a view according to law. In the result, the revision succeeds in part with no order as to costs. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal as regards rejection of the book version of the turnover is upheld and as regards taxability of jharu, the Tribunal is directed to redetermine the same in view of the observations made above. In doing so the Tribunal will also take into consideration the cash memos issued by the dealer and such other materials as are produced before the Tribunal. Petition partly allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 459 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e parties contemplated movement of the goods and buyers, in the instant case, are having no residence at Madras, nor do they have any place of business of their own at Madras. Therefore, the logical inference that can be arrived at is that there has been movement of the goods which was the life-string of the instance, culminating in the contract of sale. Factually, there has been movement of the goods by the revision petitioners to the trade location at Bombay. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal is not correct in having held the transaction as an intra-State one and as such, taxable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. We set aside the order of the Tribunal. We hold that the transactions involved in the case are inter-State sales and as such, taxable only under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. We allow both the revisions with costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only). One set. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 458 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions of the said section relying on a subsequent decision that had been rendered. On a careful and anxious consideration of the facts involved in this case together with the decisions rendered on the point of rectification under the provisions of section 55 of the Act, we are of the definite opinion that the order under revision is necessarily to be set aside, since the law on the question has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Such a wide power of reversing of its own order is not contemplated under section 55(1) of the Act, on the pretext and guise of rectifying the error in the earlier order. The provision of section 55 does not in any way authorise an authority to disown its own earlier judgment on an interpretation of a subsequent decision that had been rendered by a higher forum. Under these circumstances, the revision is allowed with costs. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. Fee for the learned Government Pleader is fixed at Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 457 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... refore, hold that if the dealer paid sales tax at places other than check posts or barriers and produced satisfactory proof thereof, he is entitled to adjustment of the amount paid as sales tax while computing the tax due. 6.. With respect to the second item of Rs. 960 which was although said to have been paid at the check-gate but certificate from the Sales Tax Officer was not filed, in view of the scheme of the proviso to rule 36 requiring the filing of the certificate by the dealer for adjustment, the dealer is not entitled to any relief on this account. The Sales Tax Officer was correct in disallowing the deduction to that extent. 7.. In the result, the application succeeds in part to the extent indicated above and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority (O.P. No. 3) for a fresh computation of sales tax payable by the petitioners after allowing adjustments as indicated above. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Writ Petition Partly allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 456 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... necessary accommodation to the passengers. Similarly, a truck to make it carry the goods for which it was manufactured must be fitted with a body. If it functions as a stage carriage, it must have a body designed to accommodate passengers. If it is intended to function as a carrier of goods, it must be designed to carry goods. Unless it is so designed, it is incapable of ordinarily discharging the purpose for which it is intended. There can be no dispute that in order to serve that purpose effectively it is necessary for a motor vehicle to have a body mounted on it. 10.. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the ratio decidendi in the authorities mentioned above, the answers to the questions referred to this Court must be given against the dealer and in favour of the department. In the circumstances, however, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs. R.C. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (1) TMI 455 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... obacco from the category of the taxable items and making it tax-free, but at the same time, keeping zarda as a taxable commodity, a distinction between chewing tobacco and zarda was accepted. It might have been intended that as this article is consumed by common people and the poorer section of the society, chewing tobacco should be exempted from sales tax, but its more luxurious refined form zarda should be kept as a taxable commodity. Baba zarda under which brand name the commodity in question is being sold is a highly sophisticated and refined form of tobacco. The manufacturer himself has named it as zarda . In common parlance also, this brand is being sold as baba zarda without the long tail added by the manufacturer, namely, zafrani pati scented chewing tobacco. 8.. I would, therefore, conclude by answering the question in favour of the department and against the dealer. Their will be no order as to costs. R.C. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (1) TMI 454 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court in Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax 1978 41 STC 409 wherein it has been held that even if the raw materials purchased pursuant to a registration certificate are used for the manufacture of goods outside Delhi and sold outside Delhi such goods would be for the purpose stated in the declaration and the assessee could not be saddled with liability to tax under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. 1978 41 STC 409 the petition has to be allowed. In the result the petition is allowed. The assessment made by the respondent in respect of the petitioner for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 is set aside. The respondent is directed to make fresh assessment in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. 1978 41 STC 409. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 453 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt has held that the said section is not violative of the provisions of articles 20(1) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. Shri Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has sought to challenge the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer on merits. In my opinion the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer on merits and in view of the availability of the said remedy of appeal, the said question cannot be agitated in these proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. It would be open to the petitioners to agitate this matter by filing appeal before the competent authority and in the matter of computation of the period of limitation for the said appeal, the appellate authority will give due regard to the pendency of this writ petition in this Court. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Peerless Company was a miscellaneous Non-Banking Company within the meaning of the expression as defined in the Miscellaneous Non-Banking Companies (Reserve Bank Directions, 1973) or a 'financial institution' which was not such a miscellaneous banking company?
Whether the Endowment Scheme piloted by the Company falls within the definition of prize chit?
Whether these companies are not speculative ventures floated to attract unwary and credulous investors and capture their savings?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. If the Reserve Bank of India considers the Peerless Company with eight Hundred Crores invested in Government Securities, Fixed Deposits with National Banks etc. unsafe for depositors, one wonders what they have to say about the mushroom non-banking companies which are accepting deposits, promising most unlikely returns and what action is proposed to be taken to protect the investors. It does not require much imagination to realise the adventurous and precarious character of these businesses Urgent action appears to be called for to protect the public. While on the one hand these schemes encourage two vices affecting public economy, the desire to make quick and easy money and the habit of excessive and wasteful consumer spending, on the other hand the investors who generally belong to the gullible and less affluent classes have no security whatsoever. Action appears imperative.
-
1987 (1) TMI 451 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observations contained herein and in the judgment in the case of Malayil Mills (T. R. C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981 decided on 7th June, 1982-Kerala High Court) extracted earlier. 15. The tax revision case is allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside with the following directions (a) The amount of Rs. 1,60,746 representing the value of supplies of furniture by the petitioner to other units of SIDECO is not taxable (b) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of the question whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 had been passed within the time prescribed in Section 35(2)(c) of the Act, and to pass consequential orders in the light of this rinding, regarding the turnover of Rs. 1,60,464.97. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amount collected by the seller from the buyer which comprises of the two components the actual sale price and the sales tax is a part of the 'turnover' and comes within the expression 'any other sum charged by the dealer whatever be the description, name or object thereof' occurring in the definition in section 2(s) Section 2(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There is no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. The view taken by the High Court who repulsed the plea of the assessees that the amount of sales tax so collected from the buyers was not includible in the turnover for the purposes of computing the sales tax liability of the assessees is unexceptionable. The interim orders shall stand vacated. The appellants- assessees will be liable to pay the amount due as sales tax along with interest thereon at 12 per cent as per the condition imposed by this Court at the time of granting the interim stay. The sales tax authorities may recover the amount due by encashing the bank guarantee as also by effecting recovery in accordance with law.
-
1987 (1) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Company – Service of documents on members by, Directors vacation of office by, Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure
-
1987 (1) TMI 424 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... premises and the decree-holder-landlord was entitled to seek ejectment of the company and now the official liquidator. It is not disputed that the goods and machinery, etc., lying in the premises and hypothecated with the bank belonged to the company and the decree-holder did not claim the same in any manner. At present he was interested only in getting back the possession of the demised premises because of the eviction order already passed against the company against which winding-up order had been passed on September 18, 1985, by the Calcutta High Court. The decree-holder could not be deprived of its possession simply because the judgment-debtor was brought under liquidation after the eviction order. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The executing court is directed to proceed with the execution application in accordance with law. The parties have been directed to appear in the executing court on February 16, 1987.
-
1987 (1) TMI 416 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prospectus - Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... in accounting. But, I am no investor. The plaintiffs themselves are not cheated. There is no compulsion that the public must necessarily accept the offer of the first defendant-company. If that is so, I am not prepared to accept that those voluntary public investors are so gullible enough as to fall a prey to such an invitation. It is well-known that fluctuations in the stock market do not necessarily depend upon the profit and loss of any company. Investments in shares depend upon a variety of factors. The investors have their own calculations and the court cannot circumscribe the same. What is required in all matters of this type, assuming that there is some truth in what the plaintiffs say, is public knowledge and not any judicial interdiction. In the result, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have no known cause of action nor is there any sure foundation for any innovative action. In the result, this motion stands dismissed. Plowever, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Annual Return - Penalty for not filing ... ... ... ... ..... gainst the petitioners which needed examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. I also do not find that on behalf of the opposite party any objection was raised against the said prayer. In these circumstances, regard being had that the case is one under section 162 of the Companies Act and in view of the fact that the petitioners were exempted from personal appearance under section 204 of the Code, the learned Magistrate did not exercise his jurisdiction properly by rejecting the said application without assigning any reason whatsoever. I therefore allow the revision petition and direct that the learned Magistrate shall allow the petitioners application for exemption and thereafter dispose of the case as quickly as possible. Learned advocate for the petitioners has raised other legal points against the prosecution. The present petitioners are directed to urge those points before the learned Magistrate at the time of argument. The revision petition is thus allowed.
........
|
