|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 320 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evant documents and books relating to stock transfers only. The list of documents seized after the search and inspection also relate to such transactions, as is seen from the reasons recorded by the respondent before making the seizure. The question that, therefore, arises on these facts is, whether the order of seizure passed under section 28(3) of the Act by the respondent is a valid order made in a bona fide exercise of his powers conferred under section 28(2) read with sub-section (3) of the Act. I have carefully considered the facts, arguments and the decisions referred by both sides. On the facts set out by the respondent in his order of seizure and the statement of objections, which I accept, I am of the view that the order of seizure impugned in this writ petition is an order which was made after an inspection and not one made after a search and does not suffer from any illegality. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. nbsp
-
1987 (12) TMI 319 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amount claimed is correct or not, the return should be produced by the taxing authority before the court. Only for this limited purpose the matter is sent back to the court below. After such verification, the court may issue a warrant for the correct amount. 7.. According to the learned counsel Sri Rangaraju, the Government had been moved in this case for remission of the amounts or at least for instalments. If the Government passes any order either regarding remission or regarding grant of instalments and if any such order is produced before the court, then the court may consider this aspect also, if any such order is passed by the Government, it is for the tax authorities concerned to take such steps in the matter as deemed fit under the law. 8.. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order impugned in all these four cases is set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below for considering the matter in the light of the directions given above. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 318 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner to file an affidavit before respondent No. 1 stating that whatever liability is allowed in the petitioner s income-tax assessment for the corresponding years will be offered for assessment under section 41 of the Income-tax Act as liability ceasing pursuant to the grant of exemption by the Commercial Tax Department. On the filing of such affidavit by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 is directed to revise the assessment already made by exempting the relevant sales in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1025 dated 22nd August, 1986. 6.. A copy of this order shall be endorsed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P., Hyderabad, who will communicate the same to the concerned Income-tax Officer for the purpose of ensuring the assessment of the sum under section 41 of the Income-tax Act in the relevant assessment of the petitioner. 7.. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 250. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (12) TMI 317 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e. His complaint was and still is that he was not allowed to take notes from the records seized from his office and therefore he has not been in a position to answer the allegations effectively. This appears to be genuine complaint. We have no doubt that the assessee would be allowed to take notes from the seized documents under the supervision of the concerned officer on any day that the officer may appoint for the purpose provided the assessee would make a written application to him in that behalf within two weeks from today. On taking the notes, it will be open to him within two weeks thereafter to file his reply to the show cause notice. If such reply is so filed, we have no doubt that it will be disposed of on the merits by the concerned officer. 13.. Subject to this observation as regards the assessees remedy against the impugned orders, the judgments under appeal are set aside and the appeals are allowed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 316 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1 come within that heading. Items Nos. 62 to 70, mention only chemical compounds . So, when item No. 71 referred to chemicals not elsewhere specified in the Schedule , applying the rule of ejusdem generis, item 71 can take in such chemicals, which are chemical compounds only. Sulphur, being a chemical element , will not be covered by item 71. We are unable to accept this plea. It is true that items 62 to 70 deal with chemical compounds . But, item 71 is of very wide import. It will take within its fold, chemicals not elsewhere specified in the Schedule . It will take chemical elements and compounds not elsewhere specified in the Schedule. Admittedly, sulphur is a chemical. Sulphur will come within entry 71 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Board of Revenue was justified in holding so. The order, appealed against, dated 5th August, 1987 does not merit interference in this appeal. 3.. This appeal is without merit. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 315 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal rate of tax to the Company, but, as is now well-settled that such forms or duplicate thereof can be produced at any stage of the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority, the Commissioner or the Tribunal or even in the High Court, but the Company did not produce any such records at any such stage nor did it ask for acceptance thereof. In such circumstances, there is no point in contending that the assessment orders, made on the basis that the production of C and D forms is mandatory, are wrong. It is mandatory in the sense that without production of C and D forms it is not possible for any Assessing Authority to give concessional rate of tax. It is directory in the sense that such forms could be produced at any stage of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. In view of the foregoing circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ounts to a contravention of the law, and therefore, liable to forfeiture. This is the law as expounded in Mather and Platt Ltd. s case 1983 53 STC 104 (Bom), and, as applied to the facts of the present case, amounts to this 1. Mere recovery of surcharge in lieu of sales tax is not a contravention of the law, provided however that the amount so recovered corresponds to the amount paid by way of sales tax by the petitioners to their vendors. 2. To the extent there be excess, the petitioners have contravened the law. The excess amount so recovered shall be liable to forfeiture. The first respondent will have to re-ascertain the factual position and then apply the law as set out above. The order passed by him will therefore have to be quashed and the proceedings remitted back to him for a fresh determination in accordance with the observations made above and the law applicable. Rule in these terms made absolute, with parties being left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.
-
1987 (12) TMI 313 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pal area brought by fishcatchers, fishermen and fish vendors. Octroi on goods, such as fish and prawn, cannot be collected at the exit point of the municipal area. If there is escapement of collection of octroi at the entry point of goods and the same have changed hands for consumption and use or have been sold, the goods cannot be followed for collection of octroi from those persons who did not effect entry of the goods within the municipal area. In order to check escapement of octroi, opposite party No. 1 is competent to take suitable measures at entry points. The fish merchants, such as petitioner No. 2, who purchase fish and prawn brought by fish-catchers, fishermen and fish vendors into the Puri Municipal area for the purpose of export to places outside it, cannot be liable to pay octroi at the point of exit. 26.. In view of the conclusion I have arrived at, the writ petition succeeds. A writ may accordingly issue. Parties to bear their own costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 312 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... amounts received by the assessee for technical services rendered by visiting experts in pursuance of the collaboration agreement entered into prior to April 1, 1976, are not liable to be taxed because of the proviso to section 9(1)(vii). The assessments have, therefore, to be annulled. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for the disposal of the appeals in accordance with the opinion of the majority. ORDER 8-12-1992. On a difference of opinion between the two Members, the following question was referred to the Third Member Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the technical service fees paid by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. to the engineering personnel of M/s. Sulzer Brothers Limited, are taxable under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ? The Third Member has agreed with the learned Judicial Member. In conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Members who heard the case, the assessments are annulled. The appeals are allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... rdict on this) is that the appellants seem to have claimed duty drawback on cartons made out of non-duty paid imported materials in certain shipments which, however, are not the subject matter of the present dispute because the Collector, in his order, has not demanded repayment of the drawback amount which he should have done if the present dispute was in relation to such shipments. Perhaps, there are separate proceedings in this regard. Be that as it may, it is obvious that in the case before us, the penalty has not been imposed on the ground that the appellants had exported goods under claim for drawback though they had been made out of non-duty paid imported materials. 13. emsp In the above view of the matter, the penalty levied by the Collector is also not sustainable and is set aside. 14. emsp In the view we have taken, there is no need to go into the other submissions made before us. 15. emsp The result is that the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 310 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the transaction constitutes "sale of goods" for giving rise to tax liability under the Act?
Whether sale of the incomplete film was goods, as contemplated under the Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The assessee's business does not appear to be film production. At least that is not the business for which he has been registered as a dealer. The definition of "business" during the year of assessment was not of the extended type. There is no finding that the sale was for in course of business with profit-motive. On the other hand, the agreement of sale which is on record shows the adverse circumstances in which respondent was obliged to part with the incomplete film. In such circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the sale of the film was a part of the business of the respondent and the sale in respect of this solitary transaction would be exigible to tax.
-
1987 (12) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee was entitled to the rebate under section 15 of Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court should have answered the question, as reframed by it, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We approve the decision in Jamuna Flour and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar []1968 (1) TMI 42 - PATNA HIGH COURT] and reverse the decision in the present case.
-
1987 (12) TMI 291 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... character of the finished article (component part of steam turbines) While this description would allow a choice under the custom tariff between two or three nominative heads for steel products, for forgings, and for machine parts, for this dispute, which is only in respect of the C.V. duty, there is only choice between forgings and goods NES. In a choice of this kind, to say that goods NES is more specific or more appropriate than the iron and steel products head which was the origin of this manufactures is a failure of logic. Item 26AA is a head for castings and for forgings and I hold this head to be more appropriate for goods which have been described not as machinery parts, but only as rough forgings, though they have the profile and the essential characteristic of the finished part. These goods as they arrived in India, would not be able to fill the role of component parts of steam turbines. Only assessment under 26AA is appropriate for CV duty. 4. I direct accordingly.
-
1987 (12) TMI 290 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... C. did not state in his report that any or all the requirements set out in the Indian Standard specification were found in the ink concentrate. The department had not placed any material to classify the imported item- ink concentrate - under Sl. No. 341 of Appendix 5 of the Policy. It is necessary to point out here that the ink concentrate does not appear in Sl.No. 341 of Appendix 5 of the Policy. If the ink concentrate cannot be equated with ball point pen ink then there is no scope to apply Sl. No. 341 of Appendix 5 to hold that the import is unauthorised. 16. The appellants are admittedly actual users industrial. The items imported are required in their end product and therefore they are eligible to import the said items under Appendix 10(1) of the Policy. 17. In the result for the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed. The order of confiscation consequently the fine levied in lieu of confiscation are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
1987 (12) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Cotton fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... copies of the packing slips indicating separately good cloth and short length cloth of the same sort packed by the respondents. However, he observed that in the price lists the respondents had not made any remark explaining the significance of the digits prefixed to the regular sort numbers. 6. All this, to our mind, shows that the Assistant Collector had ample opportunity to check the correctness or otherwise of the lower assessable values declared in the price lists submitted by the respondents. As rightly observed by the Collector (Appeals), there is no allegation, much less any evidence, against the respondents that they had realised in respect of such fabrics prices higher than those declared in the price lists on which basis they had paid duty. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Collector (Appeals) was correct in the conclusion he reached. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the present appeals.
-
1987 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rial or component which gives the goods their essential character and in the present case, there can be no doubt that essential character to the goods is given by insoluble sulphur. 21. In view of our finding above that applying Rule 3(a)classification under specific Heading 25.01/32.10 - Insoluble sulphur would be more appropriate and preferable to Chapter 38 Misc. Chemical Products, recourse to Rule 3(b) would appear unnecessary. But if for any reason, sub-rule 3(a) was held to be not applicable, then sub-rule 3(b) would be attracted. Applying this sub-rule, there can be no doubt that oil treated insoluble sulphur, a mixture of oil and insoluble sulphur - essential character of vulcanization in rubber is given by insoluble sulphur, oil merely acts, even according to the Chemical Examiner, in dispersal of the sulphur-and on this reasoning also. Heading 25.01/32.10 would be more appropriate classification for insoluble sulphur or Mu-Sulphur. We therefore, dismiss the appeals.
-
1987 (12) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... toto with the reasoning of the lower authorities applying Note 1(c) of Section XVI (supra). 4. We however, do not have sufficient material to come to a conclusion as to what number of bobbins would have been necessary as original equipment when these machines were first installed. We feel that such number of bobbins as would fit in as integral part as original equipment in the 6 sets of machines when they are first installed, should get benefit of classification as the machine itself i.e. Heading 84.38(1). As for, bobbins exceeding this number, their classification under heading 39.07 should stand. 5. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras shall examine the appellants claim for refund in the light of directions and observations given in para above and grant consequential relief to the appellants. He shall dispose of this matter within four months from the date of the receipt of the orders by him. The appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms and to that extent allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Computers attachments ... ... ... ... ..... It is further observed as follows - ldquo Floppy Disk itself is always a separate unit distinct from the Floppy Disk Drives. They are complementary to each other and one cannot function without the insulation of the other rdquo . 5. ensp In view of the earlier orders of the Tribunal, we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 6. ensp Order per Syiem, Member (T) . - A floppy disk drive is only a drive that sets the floppy disc in action. A floppy disc is a memory storage, supplemental to the central processing unit. The drive feeds the disc memory into the computer for utilization in the programme it can also inscribe code from the computer on the disc. But a floppy disc drive does not transcribe data in coded form. The concession, therefore, does not cover the floppy disc drive. 7. However, as the Tribunal has ruled in favour of allowing the concession to the drive, the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... nion, it would not make any difference to the above proposition whether the time was before or after the amendment of the notification in February 82. The cello poly film is neither an input nor a raw material, nor a component, used in the manufacture of the battery and, therefore, its use would not entitle the battery to exemption under notification 201/79-CE. I, therefore, reject this appeal. 16. emsp The learned Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran pleaded that he should be given the facility of Rule 56A credit. However, I would not be able to do anything under this request as I need to know all details about the request and whether the conditions under Rule 56A have been met and fulfilled, and so on and so forth. There are many things that an assessee must satisfy before Rule 56A credit can be extended. I, therefore, leave it to the assessees to present their claim under Rule 56A to the proper authority, who will, I have no doubt, consider and pass appropriate orders as the case warrants.
-
1987 (12) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... d nothing in the two Supreme Court judgments to encourage such a conclusion. I have said a number of times before that the famous DCM judgment of the Supreme Court had been often quoted but has been, as often, misunderstood. It has been used chiefly to provide justification for assessing goods that should not be assessed, under item 68. Because there has been manufacture, these goods must be assessed under 68, so runs the argument of the department, without troubling to find out what manufacture it was. We are told that the product has acquired a new name, a new character and a new use and, therefore, there has been a manufacture but we are never told what these new names, new characters and new uses are. 17. emsp I hold that the galvanisation of the steel products will not render the products liable to assessment under 68 and, therefore, the order of the Collector is wrong. I accordingly set it aside. 18. emsp The point of time bar raised by the counsel is not more relevant.
........
|
