|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 235 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 324 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ales Tax Tribunal (annexure-4) the reassessment proceeding is still pending before the assessing officer. If that be so, it shall be the duty of the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 4) to consider the refund application of the petitioner and allow refund of the amount or adjust the same against future liabilities. In case the reassessment proceeding has in the meantime been closed, he shall revive the refund proceeding and pass an identical order. This is how justice can be done to the petitioner who voluntarily paid sales tax under mistake of law in 1978 and for the last ten years is knocking at the doors of the authorities to get the refund of the amount or adjustment thereof. 7.. For the foregoing reasons and subject to the observations made, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by opposite party No. 4 rejecting the refund application, as well as annexure-2 are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. SMT. A.K. PADHI, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 323 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g school exercises in....... In Webster s Third New International Dictionary, the word exercise has been stated as follows Exercise-means the act of bringing into play or realising in action something that is performed or practised in order to develop or improve a specific power of skill. It is, therefore, clear that in an exercise book the material part is that the student has to make a mental exercise of the lesson for what he has understood from the book itself. As stated by the Tribunal, in the publications in question the printed material is very little and most of the space has been left for exercise by the students for improving their handwriting or colouring of drawings and as such, in my opinion, there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. No other point was pressed. In the result, all the four revisions fail and are dismissed with one set of costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 322 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity is warranted under the law or the grounds are sufficient to call for such an action. With all its anxieties, this Court has considered this aspect of the case and has found that the steps taken for to issue a notice to show cause and the demand for security is not valid in law and as such it cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to declaration forms and the permit as prayed as the claim for security has been struck down. This order will not prevent the respondents to initiate any proceeding if there is any manipulation on the part of the petitioner to maintain two sets of account papers and the prayer for return of books of accounts is refused. The writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order of demand for securities is quashed and the respondents are directed to supply the declaration forms and permit to the petitioner in the manner as stated in the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 321 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earlier notification. Consequently, the said entry regarding sewing materials ceased to be taxable at a classified rate. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has held that so far as the assessment year 1979-80 is concerned, the commodity dealt with by the assessee is liable to be taxed as unclassified items. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I find that there is no error of law in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. A question that has been raised by the assessee in the memo of revision is that the impugned order is not justified because that was based on change of opinion. I, however, find that no such plea which warranted investigation of facts was taken by the assessee before the Tribunal. The same, therefore, cannot be allowed now to be raised here. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Stay order dated 29th October, 1987 passed in the case is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 320 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1987 21 STL 115. It has been held by this Court that waterproof paper (bituminised paper) packing material is obtained by bonding together the layers of craft papers with bitumin. Such packing material is leviable at the rate of 4 per cent and not at the general rate of 8 per cent. With regard to PVC bags as well it has been held that it is covered by the entry plastic packing material . This is taxable at the general rate up to 4th March, 1979 and on and from 5th March, 1979 it is liable to be taxed at the rate of 4 per cent. As already stated in the assessment order 1981-82, both items are liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent. Thus, the assessing authority, erred in reopening the petitioner s assessment and creating the impugned levy. In this view of the matter, notice (exhibit 2), reassessment order (exhibit 3) and notice of demand (exhibit 4) are liable to be quashed. This writ petition is allowed and the orders exhibits 2, 3 and 4 are quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 319 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and not from the date for which the certificate of exemption has been granted to the petitioner. 11.. For the reasons as aforesaid the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Gupta Brick Works 1985 58 STC 267 (Pat) 1985 PLJR 791 cannot apply in all force in the facts of this case and can be distinguished. For the above reasons, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption of sales tax during the period of the validity of the certificate. To the extent it has paid sales tax during the period of exemption the petitioner will be entitled to the refund of the same. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly at the stage of admission. The petitioner will be entitled to apply for refund of the sales tax paid by it during the period of exemption and if such an application is made, the respondents will deal with it and dispose of the same in accordance with law and as indicated in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition ordered accordingly.
-
1988 (12) TMI 318 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d furnish him grounds for entertaining a reasonable belief contemplated under section 21 of the Act. In these proceedings, we cannot go into the question of sufficiency of evidence which falls within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to decide. The remedy by way of a writ of prohibition under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be claimed on these matters. It is settled, that no writ of prohibition can be issued unless it is shown that the authority is acting without jurisdiction, which the petitioner has failed to establish in the instant case. In view of our above discussion, it is not necessary for us to deal with the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, on a meagre amount of Rs. 60 no action under section 21 of the Act could have been taken by the Sales Tax Officer, the argument being that the law does not take notice of trivialities. This petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 317 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar argument was rejected by this Court in Shiam Lal Sunder Lal v. State of Haryana 1987 66 STC 37. There are, therefore, absolutely no grounds for the petitioner to claim that he was not liable to pay sales tax in respect of the levy transactions for the assessment year 1984-85, which covers the period from April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985. Therefore, all those writ petitions, relating to the assessment years up to 1984-85 are liable to be dismissed. According to the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1979, the procurement price is to be fixed in accordance with the Haryana Rice Procurement (Price Control) Order, 1968, and since the procurement price fixed under the latter order was inclusive of the sales tax, the petitioner is not entitled to claim on any legal basis sales tax from respondents 1 and 2. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 316 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l, Ajmer, on this point. As regards the other two questions, suffice it to state that the Deputy Commissioner, of Appeals, Bikaner by his appellate orders had only remanded the case of the petitioner relating to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 to the assessing authority and the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal was against the remand order. The petitioner is still at liberty to raise these two questions before the assessing authority. It may also be mentioned that when the special appeal of the petitioner is already pending against the order of the single Judge dated 17th April, 1984, the assessing authority will obviously give effect to the decision of the Division Bench which may ultimately be given in the petitioner s appeal. I am, therefore, of the view that no question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal in both these Sales Tax Reference Nos. 308 of 1987 and 309 of 1987. Both these revisions are, therefore, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 315 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cannot be treated as a prejudice, or uncalled for complication. It is an incident of business carried on by every dealer in the State. It serves the State interest of raising revenue. Moreover, the petitioners are not the only dealers so affected. Every dealer dealing in any of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule has to undertake the said responsibility, whether his turnover is less than Rs. 2 lakhs, or more than Rs. 2 lakhs. In the circumstances, this contention also is rejected. The writ petitions, accordingly, fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under article 133 of the Constitution. We do not however think that this case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which in our opinion needs to be considered by the Supreme Court. The oral request is accordingly rejected. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 314 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the dealer being the respondent herein was liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent in view of the amended provisions of section 3-A as well as the definition of "manufacture" in section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 as it stood during the relevant year 1974-75 in view of the fact that the amendment to section 2(c) was retrospective?
Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand. As this aspect of the amendment had not been considered by the High Court in the judgment under appeal. The amendment gives an artificial definition of "manufacture". This has to be considered. This question also requires consideration as to whether there is any possibility of conflict with sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
-
1988 (12) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT
Refund of sales tax paid on the ground that the sale was completed only when the last instalment stood paid and the option to purchase - Held that:- Appeal allowed in part. HC was right in so far as it quashed the notice for imposition of penalty for infraction of section 46(2) of the Act.
Whether the Revenue was entitled to forfeit the money paid on account of sales tax, or whether the assessee/dealer was entitled to claim refund, would be gone into in the said assessment/refund proceedings. We direct that the said proceedings should be completed as expeditiously as possible.
-
1988 (12) TMI 300 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Company – Membership of, Power of court to rectify register of members, Circumstances in which a company may be wound up
-
1988 (12) TMI 291 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Provision for legal assistance to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... that, ordinarily, the official liquidator shall not be permitted to enter into an agreement with an advocate for payment of any higher fee than what is prescribed in annexure III. Ordinarily, the bills of costs of an advocate employed by the official liquidator shall be taxed subject to any order of the court according to the Rules regulating taxation of costs between party and party (see rule 356, sub-rule (6)). In the result, I pass the following order The Taxing Master has no jurisdiction whatsoever to assess bills of costs in any matter arising out of liquidation proceedings or in company matters. It is the Company Registrar who shall be the Taxing Officer in this behalf, and the taxation of costs shall be done in accordance with the rules provided under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. In this view of mine, I must necessarily have the bills of costs pending before the Taxing Master withdrawn and the matters should go to the Company Registrar for the purpose of taxing.
-
1988 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty and Redemption Fine ... ... ... ... ..... Court judgment (AIR SC 1977 2279). This judgment does not mean or imply by any stretch of imagination that a penalty must be imposed in all cases of economic offences. From the language of Section 112 it is clear that due discretion has been vested by the Legislature in the adjudicating authorities in this respect. Therefore, each case has to be considered in the light of its facts and circumstances and imposition of penalty adjudged accordingly. 32. In the instant case, the value of the goods imported was Rs. 1,85,377/- (Approx) and the Collector has imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000/- only. This shows that the Collector has already taken a lenient view and furthermore the appellant is also going to be compensated by the suppliers. Under the circumstances, I do not think that any reduction in redemption fine is called for. The penalty is, however, set aside in view of the reasons already mentioned above. 33. The order of the learned Collector is modified to the above extent only.
-
1988 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Order passed by Board maintainable in law, review notice being issued prior to amendment ... ... ... ... ..... (emphasis supplied) Similarly in para 6 it was observed that ldquo It is legitimate to think that the legislature did not think it necessary to affect the pending suits but wanted the cheap remedy to be available as soon as the Tribunal was constituted by the State Government in all cases irrespective of the date of the accident, provided the remedy of going to the court was not barred on the date of the constitution. rdquo 19. In the instant case also the legislature has not expressed any intention affecting the pending proceedings before the Board while taking away the jurisdiction of Board to revise any proceeding arising out of any order or decision under Section 35(A). Therefore, in the absence of a provision, affecting the proceedings pending before the Board the Board shall continue to have jurisdiction to dispose them of, and therefore, the order of the Board is maintainable. We, therefore, reject the objection and direct the appeal to be posted for hearing on merits.
-
1988 (12) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hrough the intermediate rice bran fatty acid stage in the manufacture of soap disentitled the said manufacturer to the benefit of the notification. The Court held that emergence of such an intermediate stage product especially when the intermediate stage was unavoidable in the manufacturing process would not come in the way of the manufacturer getting the benefit of the notification. In that case, rice bran fatty acid was classifiable under Item 68. In the instant case, the intermediate stage product i.e. hardened oil has been actually classified under Item 68 though the classification was not in conformity with the Tribunal rsquo s and Supreme Court rsquo s decisions but that classification cannot be ignored because it has not been changed in appropriate proceedings by competent authorities in accordance with law. 16. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct. We uphold the same and dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (12) TMI 279 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Gold dealer’s licence ... ... ... ... ..... f the opinion that it is in public interest to reduce or restrict the number of licensed dealers, the direction to that effect should have been issued to the Gold Control Administrator. In the absence of any such directions, the officers, whom the powers under Section 27 are delegated, cannot refuse to grant a licence under Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. In interpreting the scope of Rule 2(f), I am following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in their judgment quoted in para-33 of the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Shantilal G. Jain, being Order No. 623/88-WRB. I have not come across any contrary judgment of any High Court available on the point of law at Issue. 10. I, therefore find that the order of the Dy. Collector is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The appellant be granted Gold Dealers Licence within one month from the receipt of this order by the Dy. Collector, Gold Control, Bombay.
-
1988 (12) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Electronic Circuit tester ... ... ... ... ..... m. I.T. v. Taj Mahal Hotel rsquo 72 A.SC 168 Orissa v. SAA.TKJian lsquo 75 TLR 1235 Indian Carbon v. Supdt. Taxes lsquo 72 A.SC 154 . In the above view of the matter we are unable to accept the finding of the Collector that Electronic Circuit Tester covered in this entry should be restrictive to milk analysers or that it refers to calibrators because we find that Electronic Circuit Tester is specifically mentioned in the inclusive description of the entry. In this view of the matter, we hold that the item is covered by entry at Serial No. 10(140) of Appendix I Part B of Import and Export Policy Book 1985-88 and as such the Additional licence produced is also valid for the imported consignment in terms of para 265 (5) of the Policy. As we have already found that Serial No. 10(140) of Appendix I Part B covers goods imported, it is not necessary to give any finding on the alternative entry - Serial No. 10(60). In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1988 (12) TMI 277 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold dealer’s licence afresh not required ... ... ... ... ..... he department ought to have guided the applicants and on that ground the Collector was not justified in rejecting the request for approval of the change in the constitution of the firm. There is no finding of the Collector to the effect that the said partner inducted is disqualified in any respect under the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The Collector does not appear to have considered the request for approval of the change on merit but has chosen to reject it on mere technicality of not filing the application in proper form. We, therefore, set aside this part of the order and direct the Collector to consider the request made by the appellants in their letter dated 1-4-1982, namely whether the approval should be given for the change in the constitution of the firm. If the Collector were to give the approval, he shall consider the request for the subsequent renewal of the firm rsquo s gold dealers licence. In view of the aforesaid order, penalty imposed is also set aside.
........
|
