|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 227 Records
-
1988 (11) TMI 341
... ...
... ... ..... t Notification dated 27th August, 1984. The petitioner has established that it set up the new unit acting upon the representation made by the State Government. Accordingly the doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted to the facts of this case on the strength of the principles decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the two cases referred to above. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10th September, 1987 (annexure 5), and the order dated 18th December, 1987 (annexure 8), are quashed and proceedings, if any, for imposition of any tax for a period of five years with effect from 1st January, 1984, are also quashed. The petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of five years with effect from 1st January, 1984, as initially granted under eligibility certificate dated 9th November, 1984 (annexure 2). In the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 340
... ...
... ... ..... sued to the assessee or an opportunity for producing the account books was given. Even then the court held that there was no conscious concealment and there should be deliberate furnishing of inadequate returns. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner had taken a view that there was no deliberate concealment or deliberate furnishing of inadequate return. We are of the opinion that one circumstance that on September 11, 1984, revised returns were furnished much before the assessment order came to be made, much before the survey of the premises, clinches the issue and the finding of the Tribunal that section 16(1)(e) of the Act has been attracted and there has been concealment of aforesaid edible oil tins and there has been deliberate inadequate particulars, is perverse. Consequently, we allow the writ petition, quash the order of the Tribunal and restore that of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I) so far as the penalty is concerned. Cost made easy. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 339
... ...
... ... ..... to get the benefit of ST-17, the applicant must fill in all columns of ST-3 and mention that what are the raw materials for manufacturing of the goods for sale on which the assessee wants to claim any benefit, if any. The department should also fill in the registration certificate given in the form ST-4 and should enumerate that what are the raw materials required for manufacturing of the goods for sale. These requirements if adhered to, perhaps will leave out the doubtful situation and it will cut short arguments which are normally raised. In case, where such formality is not complied with, then it is the discretion of the Sales Tax Officer to come to the conclusion after examining necessary evidence of both the parties that whether the raw materials are actually used or capable of being used in manufacturing of the goods for sale or not. In the result, I do not find force in these revision petitions, therefore they are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 338
... ...
... ... ..... was done in this particular case. 9.. We were aware that efficacious remedy by way of appeal to the Assistant Commissioner is available to the petitioner and in such a case the writ court should not ordinarily interfere (see 1983 53 STC 315 (SC) AIR 1983 SC 603, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa). But as it appeared to us that on account of the pre-assessment scrutiny report of the Assistant Commissioner the assessment seemed arbitrary, we heard learned counsel in great detail and decided to interfere so as to make general observations, as we have done, for the guidance of the sales tax authorities of the State. 10.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and annexures 3-A, 3-B, 3-C and 3-D are quashed. The proceeding is remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before him on 14th November, 1988. The records may be returned forthwith. SMT. A.K. PADHI, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 337
... ...
... ... ..... rt of his second submission has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalicharan Satish Chandra v. Uttar Pradesh State 1976 38 STC 552 1975 UPTC 278. It is held in this case that alloy of zinc and aluminium does not fall within the entry copper, tin, nickel, zinc or any alloy containing any of those metals only and its product is to be taxed as an unclassified item. Thus the said case did not relate to zinc dross. Moreover, the assessee was not represented in the said case. Learned counsel for the department also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sirdanwal Industries, Rajmandi, Agra 1981 UPTC 405. This case is also of no help to the department as article of brass was involved in the same. Therefore, both the above cases are distinguishable. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs as nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 336
... ...
... ... ..... bona fide belief of the Advocate that the certified copy of the judgment could not be filed along with memorandum of appeal. We have already made a reference to rule 134 of the Rules of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan and the said rule is unambiguous and does not admit two interpretations and the word shall has been used, certified copy must have been filed along with memorandum of appeal. In a case of present nature, though as said in the earlier case even if an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not filed along with memorandum of appeal the same could be allowed to be filed later on but no efforts have been made for more than a year in this case and in the earlier case to move an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, for the reasons already given in Special Appeal No. 86 of 1987, we are of the opinion that the present special appeals are time-barred and we hereby dismiss special appeals summarily. Appeals dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 335
... ...
... ... ..... euphemism for the price of the timber. We may also observe that the question before us is not so much as to what nomenclature would aptly describe the deed but as to whether the deed results in sale of trees after they are cut. The answer to that question, as would appear from the above, has to be in the affirmative. Applying the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the present case, since the right has been given to the assessee to collect the bones and the chaal that amounts to a sale at the first point and tax is leviable at this first point. The departments, i.e., Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur, and the Forest Department, are liable to pay tax on this first point. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct and deserves to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal on 20th February, 1986 is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 334
... ...
... ... ..... but the falcofix is a new development in the horizons of the binding industry or in a hardware industry. The effect of this item is also the same but since all the items in the list has been enumerated by nomenclature and it does not include synthetic adhesive, therefore, falcofix, synthetic adhesive, does not fall in this entry and it cannot be said to cover by item No. 18 of the aforesaid notification. If the general nomenclature has been used as an adhesive perhaps this wider expression would have encompassed this item also. But that is not so and a specific item like glue has been mentioned and glue being an organic one, the falcofix being inorganic by-product of the chemical compound, it does not fall in the definition of glue . In this view of the matter the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct and it does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no merit in the revision petition and same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 333
... ...
... ... ..... would accordingly quash the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 24th October, 1986 as well as the revisional order of the Commissioner annexed as annexure-5 and require opposite party No. 2 to reconsider the question of cancellation of the petitioner s certificate of registration after taking into account the show cause filed by the petitioner. 3.. The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department says though the receipt produced by the petitioner is that of the head clerk, but the show cause filed by the petitioner is not on record. For facilitating consideration of the show cause by the Sales Tax Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file a copy of the show cause already filed before the Sales Tax Officer on 10th November, 1988 whereafter, the Sales Tax Officer would pass appropriate orders for considering the said show cause. 4.. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (11) TMI 332
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... Agrawal v. State of U. P. 1979 All LJ 922 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kundanlal Sharma v. State of Punjab 1985 Crl LJ 1411 also held that an employee of a nationalised bank is a public servant within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code which view, in my opinion, speaking with respect, is the correct view of the matter. In the result, I hold that employees of nationalised banks are public servants within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. All the criminal revision applications, therefore, succeed and the same are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, discharging the accused persons on the ground that an employee of a nationalised bank is not a public servant within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are quashed and set aside. Rule in each of the criminal revision application is, accordingly, made absolute.
-
1988 (11) TMI 323
Oppression and Mismanagement, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398, Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure
-
1988 (11) TMI 322
Whether the company could be held to be a tenant of the flat is concerned?
Whether, after the written agreement of licence in favour of the company has expired, it could be said that the company was a licensee of the said flat.
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Both the aforesaid questions are left open to be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. We may, however, point out that if there are any observations in the judgment of the High Court to the effect that, after a written agreement of licence comes to an end, there cannot be an implied licence, they may not be taken as laying down the correct law.
-
1988 (11) TMI 321
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... e implication of the provisions of this new legislation may require further examination. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to pass the following order (a)The management of respondent (i) shall, once in every six months, viz., on first January and first July of every calendar year, inform the respective petitioners and their counsel at the address shown in the company petition or to any other changed address which may be intimated, the progress of the case before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by registered post (ii) shall not alienate the assets without leave of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction for a period of six months (b)The winding up petitions are closed with liberty to the petitioners to make an application for reviving them in the event it becomes permissible by virtue of any subsequent decision of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The company petitions are, accordingly, closed. No orders as to costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 300
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ically disclose the source of information which was believed by him to be correct. Even if the plea was correct, the petitioner could obtain a certificate from the banker who had honoured the cheques issued for and on behalf of the respondent company by Shri S.S. Sandhu. No such document has been placed on record. The receipt of goods is denied by the respondent and no material has been placed before this court to vouchsafe the assertions of the petitioner that the goods had been supplied. The petitioner has to prove the allegations made by it in the petition by leading positive evidence and this could be done only in a civil suit. The respondent company has prima facie established that the debt is bona fide disputed by it. Consequently, I dismiss the petition and relegate the petitioner to a civil suit, The petitioner, however, will be entitled to invoke the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, in the civil litigation. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 299
Winding up - Delivery of property to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... ial liquidator and when it was disturbed. The official liquidator will submit an application before the District Magistrate, Ropar, under section 456 of the Act. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the possession of the official liquidator was disturbed by the director of the respondent company, he will take such steps as are necessary for restoring possession to the official liquidator. The District Magistrate shall afford opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in proof and disproof of their respective contentions and after recording such evidence, he will satisfy himself that the official liquidator, after the petitioner-company was ordered to be wound up, took possession of the land and the building on which the office of the respondent company was located and if possession was subsequently disturbed illegally by the respondent company, he will order restoration of possession to the official liquidator. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.
-
1988 (11) TMI 298
Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... hich the price was payable (b)to the buyer in a suit by him for the refund of the price in a case of a breach of the contract on the part of the seller mdash from the date on which the payment was made. The liability on the part of the buyer to suffer interest is a statutory liability arising under sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act. The respondent is liable to pay interest on the unpaid price of goods supplied to it. In the circumstances of this case, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date the decretal amount became due till realisation. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly. In view of my findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2, I allow this petition and pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,476.02 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent with nine per cent per annum interest from the date the decretal amount became due till realisation. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 297
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... both the cases, the amount was paid because of the consent order, which is not the position in this case. In the case on which Shri Garg has placed reliance, the conduct of the respondent-company was bona fide inasmuch as, in spite of default in payment of one of the instalments, the company came up before the court to pay the balance amount still the petitioner did not agree to it and it was in those circumstances that the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount back in the court and when the balance was not paid, the court dismissed the winding up petition. Such conduct is not visible in this case. Even if half of the amount remains unpaid, the respondent-company is indebted in an amount which is more than Rs. 500. Thus, there is no merit in the objection. In the premises aforesaid, the objection raised by Shri Garg and support by Shri B. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent-company, is overruled. Let the petition be listed for hearing on November 18, 1988.
-
1988 (11) TMI 274
HDPE tapes used in manufacture of HDPE sacks ... ... ... ... ..... be said that the raw material was not used in the manufacture of the finished notified goods. The ratio of the Bombay High Court decision is fully applicable to the facts of this case. Following the ratio of the Special Bench, which has placed reliance on the Bombay High Court ruling referred to above, we hold that the finished product is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules. So far as the question of refund is concerned, we agree with the order of remand in this regard passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. In the result the appeals are dismissed and disposed of in the above terms. 6. It is not disputed before us that the impugned orders are totally in favour of the Respondents and in such a situation the question of the Respondents filing Cross Objections as against the impugned orders would scarcely arise. The Cross Objections are, therefore, dismissed as misconceived in law.
-
1988 (11) TMI 273
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... urposes of these private accounts as explained by the Production Supdt. are different. In any case as held by the Collector that during the period February, 1985 to June, 1985 production in R.G. is greater than that shown in the private records, it will, therefore, be too far fetched to conclude that the production as shown in private records though for different purposes is not included at all in the R.G. 1. For such a conclusion some more evidence is required regarding consumption of raw material or sale of such goods alleged to have been produced in excess by the appellants. Obviously such evidence is lacking. In the circumstances, we cannot hold that the production shown in the private records has not been included at all by the appellants in their R.G. 1 and has thus been clandestinely removed. Accordingly, the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 7,77,460.93 and imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- are not sustainable. 9. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (11) TMI 272
Import - REP licence ... ... ... ... ..... ce the charge of under-valuation, has not been sustained and there is no malafides attributed to the appellants, there is no warrant for the levy of the personal penalty. The Collector, in fact, has observed as under in this regard - ldquo It is observed that the Department has not detected any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to reveal malafide on the part of the importers or that there has been a remittance of foreign exchange over and above the invoice value. It is possible that the price has been fixed by the supplier across the table, the details of which are not on record. Notwithstanding this fact, the proof of mensrea for the purpose of penalty under Section 112(b) of the C.A. has to be established either by reference to direct evidence or by reference to circumstantial evidence. Such evidence is not available on record. rdquo 27. Therefore, in view of the above, the order of personal penalty is set aside. 28. The appeal, thus, partially allowed in the above terms.
........
|
