|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 271 Records
-
1987 (11) TMI 364 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oint Commissioner is a suo motu power to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and make any order and pass an order enhancing, cancelling or modifying the assessment order or direct a fresh assessment. This power cannot be equated with the right of appeal and the power of revision to be exercised by the Commissioner, much less a vested right. What are the substantive rights, and what are matters of procedure and in a case of taxing statute, what are the machinery provisions which are meant to be exercised for purposes of administration of the Act, are all well-settled. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner has to be rejected as wholly unsustainable. Therefore, there is no substance in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the writ petition and they are liable to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly. Sri Dattu, High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance in two weeks. Writ petition dismissed. nbsp
-
1987 (11) TMI 363 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ority for scrutiny of the declaration forms for coming to a conclusion. 4.. Having examined the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the department, we are satisfied that the appellant had made out a case for non-production of the forms before the assessing authority. In that view of the matter, the appellate authority was within his rights to accept them. However, he committed a mistake inasmuch as instead of remitting back the matter to the assessing authority, he accepted the forms without proper scrutiny. Therefore, his order was fit to be interfered with by the Commissioner to that extent only. 5.. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner and direct that the matter be remitted back to the appropriate Sales Tax Officer for verification of the C declaration forms filed by the appellant before the appellate authority and then pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 362 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... levy thereunder. The provisions of a taxing statute should be strictly construed so that its incidence is not extended beyond the sanction of the law. In case of doubt such interpretation should be preferred which benefits the persons who have been made liable to the incidence. The term spices should, therefore, be construed as is understood in common parlance. It was held in Netai Mohan Saha v. State of West Bengal 1983 52 STC 329 (Cal) that the expression spices is nothing but an ingredient which adds flavour to food. Item 27 including chillies and coriander seeds does not include the powders thereof. Even if chillies and coriander seeds would thus be taxable at 8 per cent, the powders thereof not treated as spices cannot fall under the net of this entry. We hold that the Tribunal was correct in the view that the goods specified do not come under item 27 and could be taxed only as general goods. The tax revision fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 361 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Dall and Flour Mills v. State of M.P. (M.P. No. 1861 of 1983-Madhya Pradesh High Court) which shows that the petitioners were aware of the fact that they were not entitled to exemption and it was only after the aforesaid decisions that they considered to apply for exemption. This fact is further fortified from the conduct of the petitioners themselves as they continued to submit returns right from 1983 onwards and continued to pay the tax as assessed against them without taking any steps to claim exemption. In this behalf paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition are self-explanatory. Thus having regard to all these facts, the question of application of principle of promissory estoppel in the present case does not arise and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 21.. In the result, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security may be refunded to the petitioners of these cases. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 360 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... November, 1982. 7.. Since the question as to which of the transactions in each of the two cases were katchi adhat transactions and which of them were pucki adhat transactions is a relevant question to be decided, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for deciding that question. 8.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our answer to the two questions referred to us is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, such of the transactions which represent katchi adhat transactions are not taxable in the hands of the assessee and that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the case to the assessing authority for deciding the question as to which of the transactions represented katchi adhat transactions and which represented pucki adhat transactions. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (11) TMI 359 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tober, 1978, deserves to be quashed. Of course, cancellation of the notification dated 7th April, 1967 by the impugned notification with effect from the date the impugned notification dated 7th January, 1981 shall be valid inasmuch as it is settled law that an exemption as aforesaid in the nature of concession and can be withdrawn at the instance of the authority granting the exemption. 4.. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned notification dated 7th January, 1981, annexure C, in so far as it cancels the earlier notification dated 7th April, 1967 with retrospective effect from 1st October, 1978, is quashed. It shall, however, be valid and enforceable with effect from 7th January, 1981. It would be open to the petitioners to approach the Sales Tax Officer concerned for consequential relief. There shall be no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioners, if it has been so deposited. Writ petition allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 358 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntents of the aforesaid affidavit. 8.. Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no detailed questions were put to the petitioner with regard to the account books and loose papers which were seized from the premises of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Basantlal and consequently, the petitioner was prejudiced. In our opinion, there is no substance even in this submission. Indeed it stands admitted by the petitioner that he was specifically asked about the said account books and loose papers and he denied any connection with them. After this reply made by the petitioner that he had no connection with the said account books or loose papers, there was hardly any occasion for putting any further question to the petitioner with regard to those account books and loose papers. 9.. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Writ Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 357 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n vested in him under law. The 2nd respondent should have considered exhibits P5 to P7 on the merits and in accordance with law. The learned single judge was justified in quashing exhibit P8 and directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of exhibits P5 to P7 on the merits and in accordance with law. 3.. It now remains to consider the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, brought to our notice in State of West Bengal v. Paper Products Ltd. 1986 61 STC 42. The Division Bench has not referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Brothers Agencies case 1973 31 STC 434, Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. case 1976 37 STC 517 and other relevant decisions. With great respect-to the learned judges, who decided the case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the dictum laid down in the said case as laying down the correct position in law. We respectfully dissent from the said decision. 4.. There is no merit in this writ appeal. It is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 356 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ter the raid, the seizure of the books could not be said to have resulted because of the voluntary disclosure. 9.. Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that the amount of penalty was excessive. A similar submission made before the Tribunal was repelled by pointing out that considering the quantum of suppression the amount of penalty was reasonable and there was no justification for interfering with that order. In this connection the Tribunal has further pointed out that a proper notice in form XVI was served on the assessee on 15th February, 1979 and the assessee had filed its reply on 28th February, 1979 and it is only thereafter that the order of penalty was passed. 10.. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the six questions which have been stated above are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (11) TMI 355 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed since the petitioner made applications to the appropriate authorities of the Forest Department for refund and no orders have been passed by those authorities, we are of the opinion that a case has been made out for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to pass final orders on the aforesaid applications made by the petitioner for refund of sales tax and entry tax. 6.. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the State of M.P. which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1, as also respondents Nos. 2 and 3 through Secretaries in the Separate Revenue Department, Forest Department and Industries Department respectively, is directed to decide the aforesaid applications made by the petitioner for refund of sales tax and entry tax within three months from today. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. Order accordingly.
-
1987 (11) TMI 354 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sale of both is four per cent. In the circumstances, we find no justification in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the earlier decision in Konark Steel Industries case 1988 69 STC 187 (Orissa) has not been correctly decided and we are unable to accede to his request for referring these cases to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgment in O.J.C. Nos. 518, 519 and 973 of 1979 Konark Steel Industries case 1988 69 STC 187 (Orissa). We find no reasonable ground to differ from the view taken by the two earlier Bench decisions of this Court and, in our opinion, those decisions must be held to have been correctly decided. The extra demand raised by the assessing officer under the impugned order (annexure 1 to each of the writ applications) on the basis that the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) applies is hereby quashed and each of the writ applications is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. L. RATH, J.-I agree. Writ applications allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 353 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the ground that it had no sufficient material whatsoever to extend same pattern to cover also six months . The above principle appears to me quite forceful and meaningful and fully supports the view taken by the learned Member. 7.. I therefore hold that it is open to the assessing authority while exercising best judgment power of assessment to confine the additions with reference to a particular period only taking into consideration the nexus between the materials available on the record, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, when there is no legal compulsion that it must be for the entire assessment year. 8.. I would therefore hold that no error of law has been committed in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the answer to the question must be given in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, I would, however, make no order as to costs. S.C. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (11) TMI 352 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ule to the Act are taxable and the turnover relating to those goods is taxable turnover on which alone the levy is imposed by sub-section (2A)(i) of section 5 of the Act read with its proviso introduced by the Finance Act 18 of 1987. 9.. The above discussion disposes also of the contention that the levy is opposed to article 19(1)(g) and article 300A of the Constitution. 10.. The decisions in 1938 1 STC 1 (FC) AIR 1939 FC 1 (In re Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938), 1942 1 STC 104 (FC) AIR 1942 FC 33 (Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons), AIR 1931 PC 248 (Eshugbayi Eleko v. Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria) and AIR 1963 SC 1760 In re Sea Customs Act, 1878, Section 20(2) referred to by Sri Rama Shenoi during the course of his arguments have no relevance for decision of this case. These original petitions are accordingly dismissed, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 351 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 44(1) of the Act to refer the said question to this Court, the prayer in the present application for requiring the Tribunal to refer that question cannot be granted. 4.. As regards the first question, it has been pointed out by the Tribunal that extraction of boulders only involves digging of earth in order to loosen the boulders so as to facilitate their collection and transport. The Tribunal has further pointed out that on the boulders being so extracted, there is no transformation of any sort, nor any new and different article comes into existence. In our opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case and keeping in view the nature of the activity involved in extraction of boulders, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in taking the view that extraction of boulders did not amount to manufacture under section 2(j) of the Act. 5.. This application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 350 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... read with explanation 2, the previous decision will be deemed to have been rendered otiose. 9.. It is, however, not necessary to enter into this complicated sphere for the simple reason that the amendment in question came into force subsequent to the periods of assessment, i.e., 1974-75 and 1975-76. So, that will have no bearing upon the subject-matter of the present cases. Both the writ applications are, therefore, squarely covered by the decision referred to above and accordingly it must be held that the petitioner did not carry on any business in the supply of sleepers and was therefore not a dealer within the meaning of the Central Sales Tax Act at the relevent time and was not liable to be assessed under the said Act. 10.. Both the writ applications, therefore, must succeed. They are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders of assessment are hereby quashed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. R.C. PATNAIK, J.-I agree. Writ applications allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 349 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iscussed in the aforementioned decision. Further, it appears from the order as per annexure-1 that in this case arrangement was made by which sleepers were obtained by the railways from timber dealers through the Divisional Forest Officers of Orissa. It is therefore clear that the arrangement for supply of sleepers by the petitioner to the railways, that is the Sleeper Controller at Calcutta, was in the course of inter-State sale and not intra-State sale. It was rightly held by the assessing authority initially that the said turnover was exigible to Central sales tax and taxed under the said Act. The conclusion arrived at by the authority under the impugned order that there was escaped assessment or under-assessment was thus without any basis. 6.. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order, as per annexure-1, is set aside. No demand shall be raised on its basis. There will be no order for costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 348 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... red to pursue the said remedy and no decision in regard to the validity of the order of imposition of penalty is needed at this stage in the present writ petition. 4.. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the petitioners should pursue the revision which they have filed against that order and which is still pending. The petitioners are, however, directed to renew the bank guarantee furnished in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court dated 10th October, 1984, till disposal of the revision aforesaid. The revisional authority, while passing final orders in the revision, is authorised to pass necessary orders with regard to the discharge of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners as a consequence of the final orders being passed in revision. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount may be refunded to the petitioners. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 347 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within which he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of any other amount due by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 346 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that consequent upon the grant of eligibility certificates, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief of exemption from taxation before the sales tax authorities. So far as this submission is concerned, suffice it to point out that the consequences contemplated by the learned counsel for the petitioners will enure only after grant of eligibility certificates. As such, it would be open to the petitioners after they have been granted eligibility certificates to approach the sales tax authorities in this connection for appropriate relief. 11.. In the result, all these three writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The respondents are directed to issue eligibility certificates to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the notification dated 23rd October, 1981 referred to above. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioners of each of these petitions. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 345 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the claimants is Rs. 14,36,595.27 with interest up to 15th November, 1987. The petitionerbank is a nationalised bank and respondent No. 1 is a department of the administration. In the interest of justice, I order that the petitionerbank will be entitled to Rs. 7,08,040.51 and the balance amount, namely, Rs. 7,28,554.76 will fall to the share of respondent No. 1. The amount of Rs. 7,08,040.51 is invested in the F.D.R. which is held by respondent No. 1. The F.D.R., according to the counsel for respondent No. 1, is maturing in the month of January, 1988. The respondent No. 1 shall surrender the said F.D.R. to the bank after its maturity and within a week of the presentation the entire amount of Rs. 7,28,554.76 shall be paid to respondent No. 1. The petitioner-bank shall also pay the interest accrued on the said amount from today till the actual payment. With this order, the civil writ petition is disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
........
|
