|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 575
... ...
... ... ..... should be assessed by applying the provisions of Rule 114 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This point had also come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the earlier year and following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Allied Chemical Corpn. v. IAC 1983 3 ITD 418(Bom.) the Tribunal declined to accept the contention. The same decision would hold good for this year also. 59. Before we take leave of this order, we feel it our pleasant duty to place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the able assistance provided to us by Shri Dastur on behalf of the assessee and by Shri Prashant Ray on behalf of the Department. An otherwise difficult and abstract subject has been made highly interesting and absorbing by the way it is presented to us. In particular, we wish to compliment Shri Prashant Ray, the Departmental Representative, who represented the department's case in a very able manner. 60. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1987 (7) TMI 574
... ...
... ... ..... ate which involved tours as well as two Cabinet meetings at Pune on October 28 and 29, 1986 and at Aurangabad on November 11 and 12, 1986" was no explanation at all why the Chief Minister did not attend to the representation made by the appellant till November 17, 1986 i.e. for a period of 25 days. There was no reason why the representation submitted by the appellant could not be dealt with by the Chief Minister with all reasonable promptitude and diligence and the explanation that he remained away from Bombay is certainly not a reasonable explanation. In view of the wholly unexplained and unduly long delay in the disposal of the representation by the State Government, the further detention of the appellant must be held illegal and he must be set at liberty forthwith. For these reasons, the appeal must succeed and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. P.S.S. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 573
... ...
... ... ..... hile he carries but without any interest in the property. 4. The words "otherwise acquire" occurring in FERA, 1947 is preceded by the word "buy" and followed by another word "borrow". Therefore the words "otherwise acquired" have to be given a meaning in the context in which it is used, which can only be identical with the meaning given to the words "buy" or "borrow". Therefore, we respectfully agree with the meaning given to these words by the Madras High Court as well as by the Bombay High Court, that interest in the property must have been transferred to the person in possession in order to attract Section 4(1) of the Act. 5. In this case there is no evidence that the respondent acquired any interest in the properties seized. 6. Under the circumstances, we do not think that there is any error in the decision of the Appellate Board. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 572
... ...
... ... ..... to non-appreciation no question of law would arise. Non-appreciation may give rise to the question of law but not mere misappreciation even if there be any from certain angle. Change of perspective in viewing a thing does not transform a question of fact into a question of law. 17. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that in preferring one view to another view of factual appreciation, the High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under the Income-tax reference in answering the question of law. 18. In the premises, we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error insofar as it held that the Tribunal had acted incorrectly. We are further of the opinion that the reformed question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 19. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court insofar as answer to the question No. 3 is concerned is set aside. The assessee is entitled to the costs of this appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 571
... ...
... ... ..... ioner could as well resort to the process of a revision before the concerned Deputy Commissioner as against the distraint order and the said revisional authority can appropriately investigate this question and render a decision one way or the other. In my view, this is the proper course to be adopted on the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to resort to the process of revision within a period of four weeks from today to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, who shall entertain the same, without putting the aspect of limitation if any, and shall consider it on merits, affording an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case. Until the revision is disposed of, the impugned distraint order of the respondent shall not be prosecuted, subject to the condition the petitioner prefers the revision within the time reserved therefor in this order. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 570
... ...
... ... ..... e howsoever, since the contract provides that the loss or damage on account of theft, fire, stress of weather or otherwise is to be borne by the contractor himself. We have no hesitation in holding that the contract was one for sale of the vessel. This view is further strengthened by the fact that the purchaser was not supplying any material for the construction of the craft. In these circumstances, we hold that the contract entered into between the assessee-respondent and the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India, was one for a contract of sale of hulls. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal is illegal and we reverse the same. In the result, the tax revision case is allowed, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25th September, 1982 is reversed and the order of the assessing authority as confirmed by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner in S.T.A. No. 596 of 1978 is restored. We make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 569
... ...
... ... ..... n the Central excise authorities inspected the petitioner s business place on 4th April, 1981, they detected an excess stock of 105.7 gms. of gold. These irregularities were taken by the authorities below as sufficient ground for rejecting the petitioner s books of accounts. This shows that the authorities had sufficient acceptable legal evidence for rejecting the accounts of the petitioner. Once the accounts are rejected, assessments are to be made on the basis of best of judgment. The assessing authority fixed the turnover at 4 times the average running stock. On appeal the Tribunal which is the ultimate fact-finding authority fixed the petitioner s turnover at three times the average running stock. In the above circumstances, we hold that the decision arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal is based on sufficient relevant materials and that no interference by this Court of the same is called for. Accordingly we dismiss these tax revision cases in limine. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 568
... ...
... ... ..... to Central sales tax in Rajasthan as inter-State sales under section 9 of Central Sales Tax Act although Central sales tax had already been paid on the same goods in the State of Bihar where the movement of the goods in question had commenced (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act would not be applicable to the present case. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the orders dated 22nd December, 1976 passed by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 100/73/CST Act Distt. Jaipur, as well as the order dated 19th February, 1979 passed by the Division Bench of Board of Revenue in Special Appeal No. 36/76/S.T./Jaipur are set aside and the assessment order dated 30th June, 1967 passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur and the order dated 12th May, 1969 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur are restored. There would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 567
... ...
... ... ..... or this reason the Tribunal s decision relating to axles cannot be challenged. The question is only of the rims used in wheels of cycles and other vehicles. This being so, the Tribunal s view that rims are an integral component or part of a wheel or at least a wheel set, cannot be treated as unjustified. There is no other competing entry. This being so, if the above quoted entry (xiv) is wide enough to include rims within its ambit, then the applicability of the residuary entry would automatically been excluded. Taking into account the ordinary meaning of wheel in the manner in which it is understood amongst persons dealing with the same, it is reasonable to hold that rim is included within the expression wheel in the above entry, particularly when there is no other competing specific entry for it. This being a plausible view to take, a construction which favours the tax-payer must be preferred. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 566
... ...
... ... ..... ng dealers. In the assessment proceeding under section 12(4) of the Act, the assessing officer recorded the statement of purchasing dealer Maheswar Parida and allowed the deduction of sales to him. This statement coupled with an affidavit in the proceeding under section 12(8) of the Act was accepted by the Tribunal. The affidavit of Jharendra Das was accepted by the Tribunal and the turnover of sales to him was deducted from the total turnover. Whether the sales were made to the registered dealers by the assessee-dealer is a question of fact. It is not a case of finding without any material. Thus, the question as posed is only of academic interest since the matter is concluded by findings of fact. No question of law having arose out of the order, the reference is misconceived. 4.. In the result, we decline to answer the question which is academic in its nature and the reference is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Order accordingly.
-
1987 (7) TMI 565
... ...
... ... ..... uestion does not require much discussion since it has been answered by two recent decisions of this Court in the case of Orissa State Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation Ltd., Rayagada v. State of Orissa, represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa 1988 68 STC 217 (1987) 1 OLR 329, and State of Orissa, represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa v. Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Calcutta 1988 68 STC 71 (1987) 1 OLR 361. It has been held that the appellate authority in appropriate cases has the power to accept the declaration form. The Tribunal, therefore, has committed an error of law in taking a contrary view. It should have remitted the matter back to the assessing authority. 4.. In the result, the answer to the question referred to is given in favour of the dealer and against the department. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 564
... ...
... ... ..... ificate of registration was received by it after the end of the quarter in question, i.e., on 11th July, 1975, and, therefore, it did not incur any liability for payment of sales tax for the first quarter. It is in this way that the matter has been referred to this Court as all the authorities have rejected the stand of the dealer. 3.. We, however, need not detain ourselves as a similar question has already been answered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Bhagabati Timber 1982 50 STC 134, where it has been held that the liability in such a case would be from the date when the certificate of registration is received by the dealer. Following the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid case, the answer to the questions must be given in favour of the dealer and against the department, namely, that the liability would commence only from the date of receipt of the registration certificate by the dealer. We, however, make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 563
... ...
... ... ..... ithout taking into consideration that statement, the order of assessment can or cannot be sustained, is a matter which can be gone into by the appellate authority and if it is found that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine any person, on whose statement the order of assessment is based, then the appellate authority would no doubt remand the case. This is, however, not a case where order of assessment was passed without hearing the petitioners and the order of assessment is a nullity, moreover, we are satisfied in the instant case, that the petitioners were also responsible for prolonging the assessment proceedings. They have suppressed material facts in the petition that the enquiry had commenced prior to 22nd September, 1986. Therefore, this is not a fit case, in our opinion, for exercising the extraordinary powers of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. 10.. The petition, therefore, fails and is summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 562
... ...
... ... ..... n 4 which deals with incidence of taxation also takes into account only the dealer s gross turnover during a year. Sales tax means an incidence of tax on sale. Obviously, the notification had been issued for realisation of sales tax. The expression cost must therefore mean the sale price of the goods sold by the dealer, i.e., which will be the cost for him for purchasing the radio. 7.. The determining factor regarding the rate of tax in the transaction of the present nature therefore being the sale price and undisputedly sale price of each radio being Rs. 150, the dealer must be held to be liable to pay tax at the rate of 12 per cent under serial No. 90 of this notification. Purchase price of such radios by the selling dealer must be completely an irrelevant consideration for computation of the rate of tax. 8.. The answer to the question therefore must be given in favour of the department and against the dealer. S.C. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 561
... ...
... ... ..... and their findings were based on insufficient material. In these circumstances in my opinion no valid objection can be taken when the Tribunal thought that orders passed by the lower authorities are not liable to be sustained unless further investigation was made on the lines suggested by it. On a careful consideration of facts set out in the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, I see no justification to interfere with it. It is so even assuming that an alternative view or other views might exist. The Tribunal in my opinion took a balanced view, rather favourable to the assessee by setting aside the assessment and sending it back to the assessing officer for fresh assessment where the assessee will have full opportunity to contend its case. The order of remand has been passed for good and sufficient reasons. I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. In the result this revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 560
... ...
... ... ..... by utilising the purchased materials, they have not committed any violation of the second proviso to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act. 12.. As in my opinion, in spite of the conversion of the materials purchased by the petitioners from the selling dealers, the various commodities manufactured by them in their rolling mills although became by name different commercial commodities they being specifically enumerated and mentioned in the definition of iron and steel , the assessing authority has completely misdirected himself in holding that they became different goods and therefore the petitioners violated the provisions of law. 13.. The writ applications therefore must succeed. They are accordingly allowed. The further demands raised on this account under the impugned orders in annexure 1 to each of the writ applications are hereby quashed. In the circumstances, however, I will not saddle the opposite parties with costs. K.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Writ applications allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 559
... ...
... ... ..... he department would have made a declaration giving full description of form 3-A issued to the purchasing dealer that such form should not be accepted by any selling dealer. In the absence of any such declaration, the selling dealer would not have doubted the form and it committed no mistake in having accepted the form from the purchasing dealer. The form 3-A having been acquired from the purchasing dealer, to whom, admittedly, it was issued, it cannot be said that form 3-A was given by the purchasing dealer to the Ghaziabad firm. It is the purchasing dealer alone who can explain the misrepresentation made to the department that form 3-A was given to Ghaziabad concern. The selling dealer has nothing to do with the misrepresentation of the purchasing dealer and the former is entitled to claim exemption on the basis of form 3-A admittedly, issued to the purchasing dealer. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 558
... ...
... ... ..... paper product. Judged by this test, it is difficult to hold, that duplicating paper and stencil paper can be considered to be a paper product within the meaning of the First Schedule, item No. 97. In this connection, it should be noted, that in the Finance Act of 1984, with effect from 1st April, 1984, stencil paper has been made a specific item under the First Schedule, entry No. 160A, taxable at 8 per cent. 6.. In the result we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that stencil paper will be assessed only at the rate of 4 per cent for the relevant assessment year, whereas, duplicating paper will be taxed at the general rate of 4 per cent up to 15th September, 1980 and thereafter at the rate of 8 per cent as per entry 97 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. We see no reason to interfere. This tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 557
... ...
... ... ..... alue of the opening stock of cashew and pepper was not considered at the time of original assessment, the turnover relating thereto should be deemed to have escaped assessment, and in that view of the matter, a right accrued to the assessee not to be assessed relating to the said turnover. There is no force in this plea. Acceptance of the argument of the counsel would equate has escaped assessment to a position, has not been assessed . That this is not the meaning to be given to the words escaped assessment was settled as early as 1934 in Sir Rajendranath Mukerjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1934 2 ITR 71 (PC) at page 77. It passes one s comprehension to appreciate this plea, since, when the entire assessment is at large and the proceedings are commenced by the filing of a return and are still pending, anything can be said to have escaped assessment. We repel this argument also. 5.. There is no merit in this tax revision case. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 556
... ...
... ... ..... e of the petitioner. The restoration application was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the petitioner had been negligent in prosecuting the appeal. It was also pointed out that the counsel, who is said to have gone out on the date fixed for hearing, was not a counsel appearing in the case inasmuch as he had not filed his power. On the other hand, another counsel was appearing for the petitioner. The Board of Revenue has pointed out that the petitioner had not given any reasons as to why nobody on his behalf appeared on the date fixed. Whether or not sufficient cause had been made out for non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed in the second appeal is a question of fact and we do not find any such error in the order of the Board of Revenue in this behalf which may justify interference under article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently the stay application also stands rejected. Writ petition dismissed.
........
|
