|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 383
... ...
... ... ..... AIR 1970 SC 1782 while construing a similar provision in section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee as false does not automatically attract penalty in such a situation and before the penalty can be imposed it must be held that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. In the present case the Tribunal has held that there was no attempt at concealment by the dealer and his act was bona fide, inasmuch as, the transaction was shown in the books of accounts produced before the departmental authorities and the same was not shown in the return since the dealer contended that the transaction was not exigible to sales tax. There is thus no infirmity in the Tribunal s order setting aside the penalty imposed by the assessing authority under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Consequently, these revisions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 382
... ...
... ... ..... to raise a fresh challenge to the said S.R.O. through the present petition on some non-existent, undisclosed and imaginary additional grounds. On that account also the present petition is not maintainable and must fail. Moreover, the petitioner has not questioned the validity of S.R.O. 195 of 1978 vide which vanaspati was not one of the products exempted from payment of sales tax. The challenge to the amendment of that S.R.O., vide S.R.O. 448, is, therefore, futile. Thus, in view of the above discussion and nothing having been brought to the notice of the court to persuade it to take a different view with regard to the validity of amendment of S.R.O. 195 of 1978 by S.R.O. 448, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case, this third writ petition (No. 711 of 1987) also merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. The stay orders issued by the court shall stand vacated. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in all the three petitions. Writ Petitions dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 381
... ...
... ... ..... n contained in section 35(2A) of the Act, with the superadded non obstante clause, meaningless and unworkable. We cannot accept such an interpretation as reflecting the correct statement of the law. We are of the view that though in a larger sense, the ultimate point in every appeal is the determination of the taxable turnover of the assessee, there will be many or varied or different points or aspects in every appeal which may arise for consideration. If any such point or aspect was not expressly decided in an appeal, that will be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner under section 35(2A) of the Act, to exercise his powers, in the circumstances stated therein. 7.. We set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 785 of 1985 dated 26th September, 1986 and hold that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 4th October, 1985 is valid and justified in law. 8.. The above tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 380
... ...
... ... ..... ay the tax depends upon the finding on that question. 8.. In the result, we make the following order (i) the writ petition is allowed in part (ii) the assessment order, in so far it relates to the levy of tax on the turnover of lisa sugar, is quashed (iii) the matter is remitted to the assessing authority with a direction to decide the question as to whether lisa sugar is declared goods in terms of section 14(viii) of the C.S.T. Act read with the definition of the word sugar as contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act (iv) if the finding of fact is that lisa sugar is declared goods, the respondent shall not levy any tax on the turnover of lisa sugar under the State Act (v) if the finding of the authority that lisa sugar is not a declared goods, then the authorities may proceed to make a fresh order levying tax under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Sri M.R. Achar, Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance. Writ Petition Partly allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... es is erroneous in law. Sales tax is an annual tax on turnover and in order to get exemption under the Notification S.R.O. No. 342/63, it is not enough that the assessee is a charitable institution but it is also required that the profit of the year should be solely utilised for charitable purposes. It is not sufficient to qualify for exemption to show that there was no utilisation for non-charitable purposes. There must be a positive action of the assessee resulting in utilisation of the income for charitable purposes in the assessment year in question. The exemption given by the notification is subject to a condition and so long the condition, namely, utilising the profit solely for charitable purposes is not satisfied in any assessment year, the institution will not qualify for exemption. In view of this, we set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 578 and 579 of 1985 dated 20th February, 1987 and allow T.R.C. Nos. 213 and 214 of 1987. Petitions allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 378
... ...
... ... ..... d other similar organisations mentioned therein and the levy of sales tax on the bardana at the first stage could not be questioned on this ground. No principle of natural justice is involved in this. No hostile discrimination could also be said to arise in this case. The other contention of the learned counsel was that since ultimately they are supplying bardana to the Government and that transaction of sale by them to the Government is not taxable, their purchases also should not be taxed. This would only lead to the ultimate result that the sales tax should be at multi-point and at every stage of the sale or not at all. This cannot be the scheme of sales tax. Some goods are taxed at multi-point and some goods are taxed at single point and in this case the Government has chosen to levy tax at single point on the sale of bardana and no exception could be taken to that. The writ petition is absolutely devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 377
... ...
... ... ..... it has to be held that section 14(4)(cc) is merely clarificatory, and even without the incorporation of such a provision, the concerned authority had the power to assess the correct amount of tax payable in a case where exemption or deduction was wrongly granted. Hence this point is held in favour of the department. The record does not disclose that the finding of the assessing authority at the time of reassessment that the turnover pertains to first sales in the State is not correct. Hence the said turnover is liable to tax. The record also discloses that the assessing authority exercised power under section 14(4) of the Act on the basis of the material de hors the record. So the order of reassessment dated 10th January, 1980 has to be confirmed. In the result, the revision case is allowed, and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside, and the order of reassessment dated 10th January, 1980, is confirmed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 376
... ...
... ... ..... 9 43 STC 195 1979 UPTC 548 and the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), which are fully supported by the terms and conditions entered into between the parties, I am of opinion that the contract in hand was a works contract and not a contract for sale and the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel urged that some of the conditions laid down in the contract demolishes the case of the assessee. I am afraid that the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue cannot be accepted inasmuch as the contract has to be read as a whole and some of the terms cannot be relied upon in isolation while deciding the controversy like the present one. In the result the revisions succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 30th November, 1987 is quashed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act. Petitions allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 375
... ...
... ... ..... ed either by the petitioner or by the learned Standing Counsel to come to a conclusion whether there has been any reassessment pursuant to the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. But since more than eight years have elapsed, we think that reassessment must have been done in the meantime. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in the petitioner s contention that a direction be given to the opposite parties to refund the amount which the petitioner had during the subsistence of petitioner s appeal before the lower authorities. In the circumstances, as stated above, we would direct that the petitioner may make an application for refund if after the reassessment made by the assessing officer pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is still entitled to some amount to be refunded to him. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There will be no order as to costs. A.K. PADHI, J.-I agree. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 374
... ...
... ... ..... erall picture of the entries of the diary, such a rejection of the positive case of the assessee has to be based on sound reasons. But to find out as to whom the said diary belonged, appreciation of evidence gets involved and since this Court cannot appreciate evidence under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, it has become imperative to remand the case back to the Sales Tax Tribunal only on this aspect as to whether the diary in question belonged to Sri Rajendra Kochar or somebody else. In case the said diary belonged to Sri Kochar as was the case of the assessee, then there survives no other ground for rejection of account books of the assessee. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). The impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside with directions to rehear the appeals afresh and decide the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 373
... ...
... ... ..... he application for eligibility certificate are set aside. The respondent concerned is directed to hear afresh the application for eligibility certificate taking into account the materials on record and also other evidence if produced by the petitioner in support of his contention and to examine the case on the condition laid down in the rules and dispose of the petitioners application for eligibility certificate within four months from the date of communication of this order by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not decided anything as to the merit of the contention of the petitioners at this stage. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of. There will be status quo as to the realisation of the assessed amount till the disposal of the application as indicated above. This order will govern the other application moved on 25th November, 1987, on behalf of the same petitioners. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 372
... ...
... ... ..... is a finding of fact which is binding on the High Court. Learned counsel for the assessee has not addressed the Court as to how the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is vitiated in law in any manner whatsoever. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal, the case has to be proceeded on the basis as if at the time of making of the original assessment, the Sales Tax Officer had not applied his mind to the question of levying tax on purchases or granting exemption in that regard. In this view of the matter and on the basis of the principle of law enunciated above, in my opinion, the Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in upholding the framing of the assessment proceedings under section 21 of the Act for the years in dispute. In doing so, the Tribunal has, to my mind, committed no error of law. No other point was pressed. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred only). Petitions dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 371
... ...
... ... ..... hat the petitioner possesses agricultural land and that can constitute good security in this case. However, in our opinion, such a prayer can be addressed only to the concerned authorities and we hope that the authorities will take this into consideration if the petitioner makes a prayer before it. It will be for the authorities to be satisfied whether the security offered to be furnished by the petitioner was sufficient and adequate or not and will not insist that the security by way of cash or bank draft only should be submitted by the petitioner. In our opinion interest of justice would be served if the penalty proceedings are disposed of by the Sales Tax Officer within a period of one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before him. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. A certified copy of this order may be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within three days.
-
1989 (2) TMI 370
... ...
... ... ..... l Nadu v. Mahi Traders 1989 73 STC 228 at page 234 1989 SCC (Tax) 190 at page 198, para 8 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Polyweb Private Ltd. 1982 51 STC 364 (Mad.). 6. In the light of the above, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in holding that production of the declaration (F form) under section 6A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act is mandatory. The provision is only directory in character. The requirement of section 6A(1) of the Act does not compel or oblige the assessee to discharge the burden of proof cast on him only by filing the declaration in F forms. It is open to the assessee to discharge the burden cast on him in any other reasonable manner in accordance with law. 7.. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 1314 of 1982 dated 19th September, 1986, to the above extent. The Appellate Tribunal shall modify the order in the appeal in accordance with this judgment. 8.. The above tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 369
... ...
... ... ..... d on information, and even under the Income-tax Act, it has been held that decision of the Supreme Court, or the High Court, constitutes information. Similarly, if there is a change in law with retrospective effect, it would be a good ground for reopening the assessment. While it is neither possible nor practicable to exhaustively lay down a situation in which the said power can be exercised, all we need to emphasize is that the assessing authority cannot reopen an assessment on a mere change of opinion on his own part. But, if there is a change in law as elucidated hereinabove, it shall always be open to him to reopen the assessment. In such a case, the assessee cannot complain that he is being harassed. The law must be given effect to-and all that the assessing authority is doing is to give effect to the law as laid down by the highest authorities in the State, or in the country, as the case may be. I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 368
Drug intermediate ... ... ... ... ..... e impugned order is correct in law and on facts. 6. emsp Before parting with the appeal, we may deal with the only remaining plea that lsquo Hydrazine Hydrate rsquo has been specifically exempted unconditionally in a subsequent exemption notification 172/83-C.E., dated 30-6-83. No support, in our view, can be taken from the subsequent notification which takes effect from the date of its publication. Policies of the Government keep on changing with changing situations. All that can be inferred from the subsequent notification is that the Govt. has recognised specified chemicals as lsquo drug intermediates rsquo and exempted them. We are also not denying that lsquo hydrazine hydrate rsquo is a drug intermediate. But we consider that since the product is having multiple uses, its end-use as lsquo drug intermediate rsquo is considered to be built in the notification 234/82, dated 1-11-82 before the benefit of the notification can be extended. 7. emsp Hence the appeal is rejected.
-
1989 (2) TMI 367
Whether the notification No. S.O. 1432 dated 28th December, 1985 and adoption of the two forms XXVIII-A and XXVIII-B would be ultra vires articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The notification and adoption of the forms to have been validly made in exercise of powers incidental to the power of levying sales tax, and that they are reasonable and in public interest, and not ultra vires the articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the appeals are allowed, but without any orders as to costs. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the State in these appeals was interested in the law being laid down, and that even if the validity of the notification is upheld it will not revive the proceedings against the respondent to realise the penalty.
-
1989 (2) TMI 363
Whether the price realised by the assessee on the sale of firewood, timber, sleepers and charcoal was assessable to sales tax?
Held that:- Appeal allowed and set aside the order of the High Court and Tribunal in these cases. In the result, the turnovers in dispute in the two cases before the High Court will stand included in the assessees' turnover and the assessments modified accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 351
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order, ... ... ... ... ..... will also give an opportunity to the parties to bring buyers with a view to fetch the maximum price for the goods. The prospective buyers will be given inspection of machinery/goods to be sold and the receiver will work out other modalities of sale including the period during which the offers could be given and goods could be inspected by the prospective buyers. The prospective buyers will be required to desposit with the receiver 10 per cent, of the amount of offer by bank draft to be drawn in the name of the Registrar of this court. Learned receiver shall file his report within two months giving details of all the offers. The offers will be subject to confirmation by the court. The plaintiff will bear all expenses for sale and give its full assistance and cooperation to the receiver. The fee of the receiver is tentatively fixed at Rs, 5,000 which will be paid by the plaintiff. I. A. No. 6732 of 1988 is allowed in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 350
Court – Jurisdiction of, Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... ll and void. But, otherwise, if the court has power to try an offence, it may not be possible to set aside its orders, unless the accused can show that it has resulted in injustice. But, that does not mean that the complainant can choose, with impunity, a court of his choice and drag the accused to that court, and, in the present case, all on the basis of a specious plea that the company has its registered office, in Bombay. The plea of want of territorial jurisdiction has been taken at the very beginning of the case and in such a case, it becomes the duty of the court to go into this question, as continuance of the proceedings any further, if the court has no jurisdiction whatsoever itself, becomes an abuse of the process of the court. In the result, I pass the following order ORDER I quash the process issued in Case No. 54/S of 1988, now pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
........
|
