|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 426
... ...
... ... ..... assessee must be held to have discharged the initial onus that lay on him to show that the interState sales were covered by C forms issued by the purchasing dealers and the assessing authority is bound to admit the assessee s claim for assessment at concessional rate. We have already referred to the fact that the assessing authority had even declined to place in the hands of the assessee the relevant information to enable him to pursue investigation, obviously under the impression that the information indicated in the notice issued was sacrosanct and the assessee could not be allowed to make any investigation into the matter. Having regard to the above, we are firmly of the view that the assessee s claim for assessment at concessional rate of tax was rejected illegally and without any justification. The tax revision cases are allowed and the impugned assessment orders passed by the assessing authority are quashed. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 250 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 425
... ...
... ... ..... rs such as this, a proper approach is undertaken by the authorities concerned and the approach that we have found in this case is not persisted in, to the end. Mr. Kaji has submitted that, looking to the length of time that has passed in between the show cause notices and today, the authorities should be directed to complete the assessments in question at a very early date. We are confident that this aspect of the matter will be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned and they would not fail to complete the assessments as early as possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to give any direction in the matter in this connection. In view of all the aforesaid, the impugned show cause notices are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents concerned are restrained from taking any further action pursuant to the impugned notices. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.
-
1988 (3) TMI 424
... ...
... ... ..... ith due notice to the party, the limitation of forty-five days would run from the date of the receipt of the communication with a copy of the judgment to the concerned person under the seal of the court and signature of the Secretary of the Tribunal and not from the date when the order was dictated by the Tribunal. It will, however, be a fair practice for the Tribunal to fix a date of judgment on conclusion of the argument and then to deliver the judgment on the said date or on a date adjourned to the knowledge of the concerned party with a right of perusal of the judgment by the parties or by his counsel. The Tribunal will be well-advised to follow the practice of a daily cause list to be displayed on its notice-board where the cases for judgment should be listed under the heading judgment on the date earlier fixed or on the adjourned date. 17.. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the report of the Stamp Reporter. The tax case will be deemed to have been filed in time.
-
1988 (3) TMI 423
... ...
... ... ..... making the assessment to the best of his judgment. The expression, while making the assessment , leaves no doubt in our mind that the very same authority, who makes an order of assessment to the best of his judgment, should derive satisfaction that the assessee did not disclose the entire taxable turnover and that penalty should be levied, simultaneously. As in the instant case the order of assessment was completed on 16th February, 1968 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal, the order passed by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal, levying penalty on 31st March, 1971 pertaining to the same assessment year is bad and without jurisdiction. The conclusion of the Tribunal is manifestly erroneous. We, therefore, quash the order of the Tribunal as also the orders of the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad. The T.R.C. is accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 422
... ...
... ... ..... tax is not leviable in respect of lockers hired by banks to customers. Although we tread the ground through a route slightly different from what the learned judge did we reached the same destination we are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the learned single judge. 16.. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that no power is conferred on the sales tax authorities to levy sales tax in respect of hire charges collected by banks for providing safe deposit lockers under section 5-E of the Act. If, however, a contrary view is possible, we still hold that the petitioners cannot be called upon to pay tax till the date of publication of G.O. Ms. No. 794 dated 19th August, 1987, as the notification issued under section 9 of the Act withdrawing the exemption from the levy of tax had taken effect only from that date. 17.. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 421
... ...
... ... ..... lication for refund is wholly unreasonable and consequently cannot be sustained. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallick s case 1973 31 STC 358, the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Orissa High Court referred above cannot be accepted as laying down the law correctly. 10.. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was also placed in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation AIR 1972 SC 1935 since that case arose out of a completely different Act, I am not discussing it. 11.. In the result, the applications are allowed and the orders as contained in annexure 4 to both the writ petitions are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount the petitioner is entitled, in view of section 15(b) of the C.S.T. Act with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date the application for refund was made. There will be no order as to costs. B.P. SINGH, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 420
... ...
... ... ..... e laws. I find full support for taking this view from the decision in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1980 46 STC 477 (SC). Examining the facts of the case in hand and the provision of the scheme of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Rules, where the liability of sales tax can be transferred from the selling dealer to the purchasers and the same having been shown separately in the books of accounts of the petitioner which has not been otherwise rejected by the assessing officer, it must be held that the petitioner is entitled to claim the deduction of the said amount representing the sales tax recovered from his purchasers from his taxable turnover. A dealer cannot be denied the statutory right of deduction. The answer to the question, therefore, must be given in favour of the petitioner and against the Revenue. The petitioner would also get costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 250 only. K.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1988 (3) TMI 419
... ...
... ... ..... oods from the dealers outside the State he was purchasing them for a purpose other than resale to the Corporation. It might be that the assessee was under an erroneous impression that under the contract entered into by him with the Corporation he was under an obligation to sell the goods as well as to execute the works. In the facts and circumstances, we think the assessee is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is not possible to say that the Revenue has been able to establish that the assessee acted with any mala fide intention in issuing the C forms and there was a contravention of section 8(3)(b) of the Act. In these circumstances we think the levy of penalty is uncalled for. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal sought to be revised and also the order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer levying penalty under section 10-A of the Act. The tax revision case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 418
... ...
... ... ..... een urged before us in the memorandum of revision. Learned Government Pleader also did not urge before us that the impugned orders passed by the assessing authority could be sustained under any other provision of law. In the absence of any such plea before us, we do not think it appropriate to examine the question whether the assessments could be sustained by reference to any other provision of law. We are also not certain whether we could possibly enter into such an exercise in view of the consistent stand taken by the Revenue supporting the action taken under section 14(4)(cc) of the Act and also in view of the fact that the matter has passed through so many stages before reaching this Court. We, therefore, consider that the impugned orders passed by the assessing authority under section 14(4)(cc) are without jurisdiction. 15.. In the result, the tax revision cases are dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 417
... ...
... ... ..... issa), I direct remand of these cases for fresh examination of accounts of the petitioners. The assessing officer on remand will make attempts to ascertain as to whether the dominant object of the petitioners was service or sale . If they did not sell food, eatables, beverages and drinks in packets and parcels they shall not be liable for sales tax on the turnover for the years under assessment. But, if on the other hand it will be found that they effected packet and parcel sales to outsiders and the sale turnover could be bifurcated on being charged by bills, on the ratio of the decision, such turnover shall be exigible to sales tax. 6.. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the assessment orders are hereby quashed. The cases are remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment according to law in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. H.L. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 416
... ...
... ... ..... ater is a technical term and it is nothing but a forging. In view of the aforesaid facts and materials on record and the finding of fact recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal, I am not satisfied that the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal suffers from any error of law. On the other hand, the finding recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the present case on the basis of the material on record that beater is manufactured by forging process is a finding of fact. In the case of British India Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. 1987 66 STC 250 (All.) a Full Bench has taken the view that the finding of fact recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal is binding upon the court sitting in revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. In the result, the revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 415
... ...
... ... ..... ee and based on such evidence arrive at a proper conclusion. Instead as a revisionary authority he straightaway came to the conclusion that there was default on the part of the assessee in proving the matter under consideration. We are unable to appreciate the action taken by the Commissioner in this case. We would have in a case like this normally remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry and for a fresh decision in the matter. We do not, however, feel such a course of action is called for in this case as the impugned transaction related to the year 1982 and after a period of six years it is unlikely that any useful information will come into the hands either of the assessee or of the department. It would be an alround waste of time and we think it, therefore, expedient to quash the order of the Commissioner and restore the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Appeals allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 414
... ...
... ... ..... nguished by the aforesaid later decision of this Court on the ground that the word accessories did not appear in entry 7 of the First Schedule of the relevant notification. The expression accessories and component parts was added for the first time by the notification dated 15th November, 1971. In this view of the matter, this Court in the case of Kumar Electric and General Stores 1980 UPTC 729 took the view that the goods in dispute are taxable as classified item as accessories of electrical goods and taxable at the rate of 12 per cent. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal becomes manifestly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with the observations made above and it is held that baton and board manufactured by the assessee are liable to be taxed as unclassified item at the rate of 12 per cent.
-
1988 (3) TMI 413
... ...
... ... ..... that is sought to be achieved by the legislation is fulfilled. So understood, we hold that section 19B of the Act does not suffer from any infirmity, as contended by the appellants. It should be stated that the power to estimate is vested in very responsible officers of the department. The fact that the power vested in the assessing authority is discretionary cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that it is discriminatory. There are in-built safeguards in section 19B of the Act. It is only when the sale or purchase price is shown lower than the prevailing market price, as a device to evade the payment of tax, and the assessing authority is satisfied about the same, on the basis of materials , then resort may be made to section 19B of the Act. In this view, it cannot be said, that section 19B of the Act vests arbitrary or uncanalised powers in the assessing authority. 4.. We affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 412
... ...
... ... ..... n is untenable. In the cause-title of the impugned order, it is stated that the order was passed by the Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Hyderabad. The order was also signed by him as such. Nowhere in the impugned order it is stated that the order was passed by him in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon the joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Legal. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. We must also observe that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is wrong in holding that no contracts were produced by the appellant before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. In the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, it is stated that the authorised representative of the appellant produced before him copies of the agreement in question. The finding recorded by the Commissioner to the contrary is liable to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the impugned order, and allow these appeals. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. Appeals allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 411
... ...
... ... ..... the liability to tax on the turnover representing the sale of rice effected by the petitioner outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and not supported by any declarations in form C. The Tribunal, in its well reasoned order, upheld the action of the Deputy Commissioner. Sri Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Aitha Narasaiah and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 43 STC 183, in respect of his submission that the word rate occurring in section 8(2)(a) of the Act, could only mean the amount of tax which becomes actually payable after giving rebate as provided under Explanation III to entries 21 and 22 of the Third Schedule to the Act. We have carefully perused the said decision. There is nothing in the decision which supports the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, the T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 410
... ...
... ... ..... basis of any illegal search or seizure. 10. Mr. Bharuka has also urged that the alleged offence, if at all, took place within the district of Darbhanga, where, it is alleged, high speed diesel was sold in excess of the prescribed quantity. He, therefore, said that the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Madhubani, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence. This stand is also disputed by learned Counsel for the State. He says that since the violation was detected within the district of Madhubani, therefore, the Madhubani court has jurisdiction to take cognizance. In view of the fact that I have accepted the earlier submission of Mr. Bharuka, I do not think it necessary to go into this aspect of the matter since it requires appreciation of evidence. 11. In the result, the application is allowed and G. R. Case No. 691/ 84 arising out of Laukaha (Khutauna) P. S Case No. 0093 dated 21-10-1984 pending in the court of the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Madhubani is quashed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 409
Rejection of the application for revocation of the authority of respondent No. 1, sole arbitrator under sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 - Held that:- Appeal dismissed . As in agreement with the Judge of the High Court expressing unhappiness as to the manner in which attempts had been made to delay the proceeding. Having given our anxious consideration to the grounds alleged in this application, no ground found to conclude that there could be any ground for reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner for revocation of the authority of the arbitrator appointed by the petitioner itself. While endorsing and fully maintaining the integrity of the principle 'justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done', it is important to remember that the principle should not be led to the erroneous impression that justice should appear to be done that it should in fact be done. As satisfied from the facts that there is no reasonable ground of any suspicion in the mind of the reasonable man of bias of the arbitrator.
-
1988 (3) TMI 408
Condonation of delay - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court thought that the State should not be penalised for the lapses of some of its officers and that in the particular circumstances there were sufficient grounds justifying the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. It was a matter for the discretion of the High Court & we are unable to say that the discretion was improperly exercised.
-
1988 (3) TMI 407
Sales tax liability - Held that:- Review petition should be dismissed. This is on account of the fact that after the Forty-sixth amendment of the Constitution, State legislation was necessary to give effect to liability of sales tax and the Andhra Pradesh Act was a prospective legislation. The incidence of sales tax is ordinarily passed on to the customer and in the event of accepting the retrospective amendment a liability would be created without affording any opportunity to the hoteliers to pass on the incidence of the tax. In these circumstances there is any justification for review. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
........
|
