|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 288 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 303
... ...
... ... ..... dealer and in respect of his turnover. Therefore, the purchase of the steel shutter lathes could not have been brought to tax under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act on the general trade and business activity of the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal recording the fact that in the earlier years it was accepted by the department that it did not attract tax under section 5 of the Act as also in the years subsequent to the assessment year with which we are concerned in this appeal. The order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is set aside and that of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) is restored. 4.. Any tax paid pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which is now set aside, shall be refunded to the appellant. If the appellant makes an application for refund, the same shall be disposed of and refund shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of such an application. Order accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 302
... ...
... ... ..... pting C forms or other forms mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Act. 7.. Adverting to the impugned order, it is clear that the assessing authority found that there is no provision to reopen the assessment already made and that is why he turned down the request of the petitioner to reopen the assessment. There he has clearly fallen in error. The petitioner is entitled to seek reopening of the final assessment. The only thing that will determine whether the assessment will be reopened or not is the existence of sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The assessing authority was, however, required to consider the case and to say whether the cause in his opinion was sufficient to reopen the assessment or not. In view of my conclusion above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent for rehearing and disposal in accordance with law. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 301
... ...
... ... ..... assumption it is argued that if gas and diesel oil were already included in the specific schemes and during 1987-89, the replacement of the provisions introduced in 1987 by the provisions introduced in 1989 would indicate that the Legislature treated gas and diesel oil as consumables. Learned counsel wanted the learned Government Pleader to look into the schemes and find out if this was the factual position. We may state that there was no such pleading in the writ petition nor can the petitioners throw this burden on the respondent. Further, when the Supreme Court has interpreted the word consumes clearly in the Kerala case, it will not be permissible to accept the above contention particularly in the absence of the material showing gas and diesel oil as having been included in some schemes between 1987 and 1989. For the aforesaid reasons, all the writ petitions are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 300
... ...
... ... ..... of tax does not do so. Every case must be judged on its own facts and its own setting of time and circumstances. Unless the court first comes to the finding on the available material whether or not there is an infringement of the guarantee under article 301, the further question as to whether the statute is saved under article 304(b) does not arise. The goods taxed do not leave the State in the shape of raw material, which change their form in the State itself and there is no question of any direct, immediate or substantial hindrance to a free-flow of trade. On the evidence adduced, we are in agreement with the High Court that the challenge to the imposition in the background of article 301 cannot be sustained and, therefore, no question whether such imposition is saved under article 304(b) of the Constitution arises. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 299
... ...
... ... ..... r is remitted back to the assessing Commercial Tax Officer for a fresh assessment for the disputed period in accordance with law and in terms of this judgment. The assessing authority shall examine, at the time of fresh assessment, the purchase vouchers to find out whether, during the periods in question, there was any purchase of goods by the applicant which was described as cotton waste and if it is found that it was so in respect of any purchase vouchers, sales tax shall be levied under the 1941 Act on sale of those goods in accordance with law. But the assessing authority shall not levy sales tax under the 1941 Act on sale of goods which have not been described in the purchase vouchers as cotton waste and which come within the expression soft waste of cotton . 15.. Thus the application is disposed of. No order is made as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 298
... ...
... ... ..... could not be allowed to participate in the bid to make supply of the materials. This tender form, thus, gives right to the intended supplier to participate in the bid for supply with respect to non-ferrous materials, which the petitioner-assessee was dealing in. The petitioner is making purchases by giving advertisement and inviting tender forms on the prescribed forms, which were supplied by the petitioner on the payment of Rs. 25 to Rs. 1,000. It cannot, therefore, be said that the sale of the tender forms is not incidental or ancillary to the business of the petitioner-assessee. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the sale of the tender forms by the petitioner-assessee is not only incidental but is ancillary and connected with the trade which the petitioner is carrying on and is to be included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner. In the result the revision petitions filed by the petitioner have no force and are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 297
... ...
... ... ..... e allowed. 8.. The applications in each of the cases Nos. RN-252 of 1990, RN-253 of 1990 and RN-254 of 1990 are accordingly allowed. The seizure of the three consignments of sawn timber in each of these three cases by the Commercial Tax Officer concerned is not justified and is quashed. The orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Buxirhat Check Post, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri in each of these three cases, imposing penalty of Rs. 2,500, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively are set aside. Let the amount of Rs. 2,500 imposed as penalty in connection with case No. RN-252 of 1990, the penalty of Rs. 3,000 imposed in connection with case No. RN-253 of 1990 and the penalty of Rs. 3,000 imposed in connection with case No. RN-254 of 1990 be refunded to the applicant within eight weeks from this date. 9.. The three cases are accordingly disposed of. 10.. No order is made as to costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Applications allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 296
... ...
... ... ..... kh Ram Madan has particularly commented upon the species of corruption noticed in this litigation In some cases the Government officials do not dispose of the cases in proper time. The anxiety to avoid delay many a time forces the client to pay some money. This has been called as speed money . Speed money is reported to have become a fairly common type of corrupt practice particularly in matters relating to grant of licences, permits, etc. Generally, the bribe giver does not wish, in these cases, to get anything done unlawfully, but wants to speed up the process of the movement of files and communications relating to decisions. (See page 344 of Indian Social Problems, supra) The case on hand is a specific instance of speed money corruption. 8.. It is for the Government to streamline its administration in relation to this vital segment of Governmental activities. A copy of the judgment will be forwarded to the Government for appropriate action in the matter. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 295
... ...
... ... ..... with law. The fact that application for grant of eligibility certificate or for renewal of eligibility certificate is pending before the respondent No. 2 will not stand in the way of issuance of declaration forms by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with law, till disposal of the application for grant of eligibility certificate or renewal thereof. The respondents are also directed not to demand any tax from the applicant under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 or the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, for the purpose of issuance of declaration forms, till the disposal of the application for grant of eligibility certificate or renewal of eligibility certificate. We want to make it clear that this order relates only to the sales of goods manufactured in the unit of the applicant for which eligibility certificate has been prayed for. The prayer for interim order as well as the main application are accordingly disposed of. We make no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 294
... ...
... ... ..... e of the commodity, namely, coconuts on behalf of the growers and the purchasers and effect purchase in that behalf and as such collects sales tax from the buyers at the first purchase point. If that be the case, then the appellant has acted in accordance with law as coconut is liable to be taxed at the first purchase point under item 5 of Schedule IV to the Act. Thus, in either event, the appellant could not be held to have committed any offence under section 18(1) of the Act. 9.. In that view of the matter, the appellate order not being erroneous, the Joint Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction under section 22-A nor could it be said that such collection was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In that event also, he could not have invoked suo motu jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Act. 10.. In the result, for the reasons given by us above, the appeals stand allowed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 293
... ...
... ... ..... CO (supra). In our view this judgment was rendered in the context of whether the department can invoke the larger period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts having approved the classification list. The view of the Supreme court appears to have been taken in the context of whether there is a lsquo suppression rsquo . 24. Coming to the merits of the case, the appellants rsquo claim for refund on account of payment of duty by including delivery charges should be allowed in view of the order of this Tribunal in Associated Pigments v. CCE 1989 (40) E.L.T. page 186 wherein it was held ldquo Loading charges incurred inside the factory gate cannot be deducted but loading and unloading charges and delivery charges incurred beyond the factory gate are de ductible. rdquo 25. Following the above we hold that the appellants are entitled for the refund of the duty paid on the delivery charges. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the lower authorities.
-
1990 (12) TMI 292
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... titor and clearing the way for the acquisition of a capital asset, viz., mining lease and the capital asset was ultimately acquired, the expenditure incurred was on capital account, and not on revenue account. We have earlier pointed out that, in this case also, by the payment made by the assessee, it had acquired an enduring right or advantage to carry on its business tree from potential and positively detrimental competition from the partnership for so long as the assessee carried on its business of manufacture and sale of ink. Thus, on a due consideration of the terms of the agreement, the deed of dissolution and the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, we hold that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 paid by the assessee is in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. We answer the question referred to us accordingly. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (12) TMI 291
Assessee managing agent got additional remuneration - HC held that the receipt of the sum by the assessee was really receipt of a sum pursuant to an order of the court and was not income which accrued or arose during the relevant previous year for the reason that the right of the assessee to receive any further amount was yet to be accepted by the court - High Court, in our view, was right in answering the question against the assessee
-
1990 (12) TMI 290
Demand - HVI spindle oil - use in the manufacture of agricultural spray oil - application of exemption notification - Held that: if the Government intended to withdraw the earlier Notification then they would have rescinded or amended or issued the subsequent Notification in supersession of earlier Notification as the Government has not done so, the benefit of Notification cannot be denied to the appellants in this case. Better exemption cannot be denied to the assessee.
-
1990 (12) TMI 289
Re-export - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... 125 of the Act, 1962 he is empowered to allow the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine. The imposition of fine only validates the import, in other words, on payment of fine the importer becomes absolute owner of the goods, and he is free to export them subject to the provisions of Act, 1962 and rules made thereunder. The provision enables the owner to avoid confiscation by paying the fine imposed. However, there is no provision under the Act empowering the Collector to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine. The order passed by the Collector is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The reliance placed by Ms. Mann on Para 128 of the Handbook of Import and Export Procedures 1985-88 is irrelevant to the facts of the case. 8. emsp We, therefore, modify the order of the Collector in the following manner ldquo The goods are confiscated, but the appellants are entitled to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-. rdquo Accordingly we dispose of the appeal.
-
1990 (12) TMI 288
Interest on the amount of arrears paid of sales tax - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Admittedly, the sales tax was in arrears against the petitioners when section 8(1-A) came into force and it remained unpaid after the expiry of six months from 25th of January, 1964, when the provision came into force. Interest, therefore, started automatically running on the arrears irrespective of the years to which they related.
It is not disputed that the arrears of sales tax were paid by the appellants six months after the amending Act.
-
1990 (12) TMI 281
Publication of name of company, Power of Registrar to Call for Information or Explanation ... ... ... ... ..... nation within such time as he may specify in the order. The section will not come into play, unless a document which is required to be submitted had been filed before the Registrar and the Registrar after perusing the same is of the opinion that further explanation or information is necessary. Hence, the petitioner cannot invoke section 234 and pray for a direction from this court to the Registrar to collect the decree amount on his behalf nor can he make any claim to the amount levied as fine by the Registrar on the company, in view of the default committed by the company. In the circumstances, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to execute the decree by giving the correct address of the company as is now disclosed by the Registrar or to initiate proceedings for the winding up of the company under the provisions of the Companies Act. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 280
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also did not apply himself to the tests that would reveal the real character of the Engineering Corporation, we set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and affirm the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with the modification that the Assessing Officer shall afford an opportunity to the parties to bring such evidence as they may deem fit and proper and determine in accordance with law as to whether the Engineering Corporation is a subsidiary of the Transport Corporation and, although it has got a separate legal identity, it does not act of its own but acts for and on behalf of the Transport Corporation. In the result, this tax case revision is allowed. The order of the Appellate Tribunal and that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, to the extent indicated above, are set aside. The case is remitted to the assessing officer for disposal in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 265
Classification of goods - Refund - Limitation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... 14-6-1979, as stated in para 18 (V) of the Order-in-Original. This means that by approving this classification list the Department allowed the benefit of the exemption notification. Refund of excise duty paid, would be permissible subject to a refund claim filed by the respondents. The refund claim would be protected with effect from 22-6-1973 when they claimed the benefit of Notification in the classification list No. 1A/78 filed on 22-6-1978. In my view, this classification list is not a refund claim as such and refund will not automatic in the absence of a refund claim. In the light of these findings, I hold that the respondents would be entitled to refund for the period from 22-6-1978 to 6-10-1978 if they have lodged refund claim for the period. Regarding determination of the value for the purpose of Notification No. 71/78-C.E., I agree with the findings and direction given in paragraph 6 of the order written by Miss. Maruthi, Member (Judicial). 9. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 257
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... was classifiable under Tariff Heading 4410.90 from that date. He has, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal may issue a direction to the Central Excise authorities for the consequential refund from 1-3-1986. On going through the Order-in-Original Nos. DIV/TSK/19/CL/VAL/DENOVO/89 and DIV/TSK/20/CL/ VAL/89, dated 24-11-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Tinsukia, we observe that the proceedings relating to this appeal were initiated on the classification list No. 16/87-88 C/TSK III effective from 1-3-1988. In the present proceedings we cannot therefore give any direction for a period prior to 1-3-1988 as the same is not covered by the present proceedings. 3. emsp Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. However we direct the Department to implement the impugned order and pay the consequential refund to the appellants, if any, as the grievance is made by the appellants before us that the authorities concerned are not implementing the impugned order.
........
|
