|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 461
... ...
... ... ..... d be deducted. But, in the account books of the petitioner, transportation charges were not separately shown. A consolidated figure was shown as representing both the cost of firewood and the transportation charges, under the head firewood . In the circumstances, the authorities were justified in not accepting the petitioner s case. Mr. A.V.S. Ramakrishnaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then contended that section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is not applicable to firewood. His case is that unless the goods consumed ultimately become a component of the manufactured product, it cannot be said to have been consumed in the manufacture within the meaning of section 6-A(ii)(ia). It is not possible to agree. Firewood is employed to provide energy. It is too ridiculous to say that firewood is not consumed in the manufacture of khandsari sugar. Tax revision case, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 460
... ...
... ... ..... hat the question has already been authoritatively answered by a Bench of this Court reported in 1963 14 STC 46 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa v. Aurobindo Auto Service) following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 367 (Mela Ram and Sons v. Commissioner of Incometax, Punjab), holding that even summary dismissal of first appeal would amount to dismissal of an appeal within the meaning of section 23(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and a second appeal before the Tribunal would lie. Once a second appeal lies before the Tribunal, that authority has full powers to enter into the facts and law as authorised by section 23. Since the Tribunal did not proceed to consider the appeals on their merits, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the petitioner s appeals on their merits and in accordance with law. The reference in both the S.J.Cs. is answered in favour of the assessee-petitioner and against the department. No costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (4) TMI 459
... ...
... ... ..... ficers on the materials produced by the petitioners during the course of the assessment proceeding. It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid question has to be determined with reference to the facts of each case. 20.. In the result, these two writ applications are allowed and the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, on the basis of the decision taken by the State Government that briquettes prepared from the coal-dust be treated as unspecified goods, is quashed. The assessment order passed in the case C.W.J.C. No. 1277 of 1986(R) which is based on direction of the Deputy Commissioner aforesaid is also quashed. I direct that coke briquettes prepared by mixing coal-dust, soil and molasses, as in the present case, should be treated as goods specified in the entry 14(ia), being a form of coke, during the assessment proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. B.P. SINGH, J.-I agree. Writ applications allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 458
... ...
... ... ..... When the provisions of rule 5(2) are clear and do not permit us to construe the expression live-stock as inclusive of chicks, it would be improper to rely on the definition of the expression live-stock given in some other Act and hold that live-stock includes poultry. Under the A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Live-stock) Markets Act, 1966, live-stock means Cows, buffaloes, bullocks, bulls, goats and sheep and includes poultry, fish and such other animals as may be declared by the Government by notification to be live-stock for the purposes of this Act. Under that definition poultry is specifically included and is thus covered by the expression live-stock . So we are unable to accept that contention. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the authorities are justified in classifying chicks as general goods. Therefore all the writ petitions are dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 each. Writ Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 457
... ...
... ... ..... o stem-asparagus, kohlrabi bud-Brussels sprouts bulbonion garlic petiole-celery, rhubarb, fennel leaf-cabbage, lettuce, parsley, spinach, chive immature flower-cauliflower, broccoli, artichoke seed-pea, lima bean immature fruit-eggplant, cucumber, sweet corn (maize) mature fruit -watermelon, tomato, pepper. To the common man both onion and garlic are one and the same. Onion to the common man is chuvannulli while garlic is known as veluthulli . Both are used in the preparation of meals, dishes, etc., for the table. It is not disputed that chuvannulli is a vegetable. In common parlance also both onion and garlic are vegetables. Garlic therefore is eligible for the exemption from sales tax. 8.. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Tribunal has rightly held that garlic is a vegetable and hence eligible for tax exemption. Word in Malayalam transliterated in English. The tax revision case is without merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 456
... ...
... ... ..... in Titaghur Paper Mills case 1983 53 STC 315 (SC) AIR 1983 SC 603 would stand in the way of the writ petitioners, to have their petition maintained in this Court. We are also of the view that following the determination in Swaika Properties case AIR 1985 SC 1289, this Court cannot be said to have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the facts of this case. Such and above being our views, we feel that this appeal should be allowed, holding that the concerned writ petition was not maintainable in this Court on the grounds as indicated hereinbefore and as such, the learned judge was wrong in allowing the writ petition and making the rule absolute. Thus, this appeal is allowed with the observations, that if so advised, the writ petitioners may approach to appropriate forum for their redress. We keep it on record that, save as aforesaid, we have not dealt with the merits of the case and all points as involved are kept open. DILIP KUMAR BASU, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 455
... ...
... ... ..... hich the vegetable ghee or oil is sold by him using the tins as containers is a separate transaction of sale of empty tins which is other than the sale transaction relating to vegetable ghee or oil. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. The nature of the commodity, i.e., vegetable ghee or oil, is such that a container is necessary for sale of vegetable ghee or oil. It is, therefore, obvious that the tins or containers in which the vegetable ghee or oil is sold, being necessary for sale of the goods, the transaction of sale of containers cannot be treated to be an independent sale transaction. It is also obvious that these containers are not sold as empty tins since they contain vegetable ghee or oil at the time of sale transaction. This also indicates that the transaction cannot be treated as one of sale of empty tins. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the Board of Revenue. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 454
... ...
... ... ..... enhancement can be made by the Tribunal at least. The question is as to how the phrase, whether such reduction or enhancement arising from a point raised in the grounds of appeal or otherwise occurring in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) to sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Act, 1948, can be construed. For the foregoing reasons, the proper construction of this phrase seems to be that the appellate authority can exercise power of reduction or enhancement in the appeal before it with regard to the subject-matter of appeal and not in respect of the part of the assessment which is not appealed against. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The Tribunal s order dated 7th May, 1986, in so far as it relates to enhancing rate of tax on the turnover of cashmilon is set aside and the order of the assessing officer in that regard is restored. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal to pass a conforming order under section 11(8) of the Act, 1948. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 453
... ...
... ... ..... r April 1, 1978 to March 31, 1979 and at 4 per cent on the turnover amounting in all to Rs. 91,199 from the said goods during the accounting year April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980 effected at jodhpur head office and Pali branch office. We further quash the said reassessment order to the extent the non-petitioner No. 2 has levied the difference of tax at the rate of 3 per cent on the turnover from PVC bags and poly propylene bags effected on or after March 5, 1979 and till March 31, 1979 and direct by a writ of prohibition to the non-petitioner No. 2 not to recover the difference of tax under his said reassessment order to the extent the same have been quashed by this order. The non-petitioner is also restrained from recovering interest under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on the amount of difference of tax which stands quashed by this order. In the circumstances of the case, we shall leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal Partly allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 452
... ...
... ... ..... rmally associated with actions in civil suits are prescribed by the statute vide paragraph 20 of AIR 1975 Orissa 219 FB (Magulu Jal v. Bhagaban Rai). It is indisputable that so far as the Central Sales Tax Act read with the Orissa Sales Tax Act is concerned, it provides enough remedies which are normally associated with actions in the civil court within the statute itself and hence the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain such a suit has to be held as being impliedly barred. 9.. In view of such conclusion, the suit brought by the respondent was not maintainable and hence has to be dismissed. Further, because of the decision on the question of maintainability, it is also not necessary to decide the other question regarding limitation raised by the appellant. 10.. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate judge are set aside and the suit is dismissed as not entertainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 451
... ...
... ... ..... ed under the Act are relevant. Rule 58 provides for collection of cess, i.e., market fees by the market committee on agricultural produce brought and sold in the market area. Sub-rule (2) of rule 59 expressly provides that the cess referred in rule 58 shall be paid by the purchaser of the agricultural produce. The proviso then says that where the purchaser cannot be identified, the cess shall be paid by the seller. These provisions clearly indicate that the liability to pay cess is on the purchaser and not on the seller of the goods. This being so the test indicated by the Supreme Court in the above decision leaves no doubt in the present case that the cess collected by the assessee from the purchasers and then paid to the market committee cannot form a part of the sale price for computing the taxable turnover of the assessee. There is thus no infirmity in the conclusion of the Board of Revenue. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 450
... ...
... ... ..... opinion it cannot, it would form a part of the footwear, and footwear being expressly excluded from entry No. 36, the same cannot be treated as covered by entry No. 36. As compared to entry No. 36, it is clear that entry No. 12 is more appropriate for the goods in question, and, therefore, it is entry No. 12 which is attracted. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision in 1964 15 STC 719 (SC) (A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. State of Madras). The decision is clearly distinguishable. The question there was, whether hides and skins in untanned condition was a different article than tanned hides and skins. It was held that the two were different commodities, and constitute two separate categories for purposes of taxation. The question involved therein did not relate to construction of entries like the aforesaid entries Nos. 12 and 36 involved for decision in this revision. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 449
... ...
... ... ..... a revision is provided to the High Court by section 22. The proviso to sub-section (6) of section 22 expressly confers upon the High Court the power either to fix instalments for payment of disputed tax or to make such other appropriate order with respect to its payment as it thinks fit. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice that where a special enactment made the payment of disputed tax a condition precedent for filing the appeal, the courts including the Supreme Court has upheld its validity. It is certainly so. But we are unable to see as to how the said principle has any relevance to the question at issue before us. For the above reasons, we hold that this Court does have the power to direct the payment of disputed tax either in instalments or in such other manner as it thinks fit in the circumstances of the given case, pending disposal of the tax revision case. The parameters of the said power have been adumbrated by us hereinbefore. Ordered accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 448
... ...
... ... ..... d supplied to the customer. On the above findings, it is clear that it is not a case of works contract. We, therefore, see no reason to differ with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal. The other contention is that these labels are paper. The paper is taxed at 5 per cent and the relevant entry is 143 of the First Schedule to the Act. The argument is that it continues to be paper and since it is second sale at the hands of the petitioner, it is exempt from tax. It is difficult to say that the wrappers or labels, one of which is placed before us, can be called paper . It is either wrapper or label but not paper. On this score the tax revision cases are dismissed. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 447
Business income - Chargeable as - Assessee-company, a dealer in liquefied gas, supplied cylinders to customers by entering into agreements under which refundable amount of Rs. 100 per cylinder termed as deposit for supplying gas were collected from various parties - Held that:- Transfer - Whether in view of facts given under heading ‘Business income - Chargeable as’, there was neither any sale, nor extinguishment of any ownership rights in cylinders and, hence, there was no transfer within terms of section 2(47)
-
1987 (4) TMI 446
Whether weights and measures were included in "mill-stores and hardware"?
Held that:- In the special facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee should not be made to pay the amount involved in the three years in question. We indicate that this shall not be cited as a precedent. If the amount has, in the meantime, been collected, the same be refunded to the assessee.
-
1987 (4) TMI 441
Whether the direction of the Tribunal to ascertain the price of the containers (gunny bags) of wheat products sold for an all-inclusive price under the provisions of the Roller Mills Wheat Products (Price Control) Order, 1964, for taxing the same at a higher rate of 4½ per cent is legally valid?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No scope to dispute the assessability of sales tax on the turnover of gunny bags. The scheme clearly suggests that the price of gunny bags is inclusive and where cloth bag is used, a higher price over and above what has been provided for ordinary containers is permitted.
-
1987 (4) TMI 439
Constitutional validity of sub-s. (2-A) of s. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956) as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 103 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as " the Amending Act ") and S. 9 of the Amending Act validating the levy of penalties under the Act with retrospective effect - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Appeal is directly covered by a decision of this Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. Union of India [1983 (5) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court] and the answer given in that case requires this appeal to be allowed and the action of the State Government to be taken is valid.
-
1987 (4) TMI 422
Restrictions on payments, Appeals to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... i O.P. Sethi in India. It was not expected of the respondent to find out as to who is the actual owner or where he is residing. The attorney was competent to sell the house and through him the transaction was got completed. The sale deed was registered. The attorney passed on the title Lawfully and delivered vacant possession of the property in dispute It may be that Shri Issar Das was residing in the same house as a tenant but that fact by itself is not enough to establish that he had the knowledge or reason to believe that Shri O. P. Sethi is aresident outside India. There is no evidence to infer to the contrary. The point in issue as discussed earlier is based on the factual appraisement of the evidence on the particular circumstances of this case. This being essentially a question of fact where no legal implications are involved, the appeal under section 54 of the Act thus is not maintainable. In the result, I have no hesitation to dismiss the appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 421
General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles, Transfer to Shares – Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal, Power of court to rectify register of members, Power to make rules
........
|
