|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 197 Records
-
1990 (5) TMI 229
... ...
... ... ..... d 24.10.1983 passed by this Court, having regard to the fact that he has served since 1983, he shall be considered for confirmation with effect from his due date according to Rules, if he is not already confirmed by the Corporation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of C.A. No. 885 of 1980 with the direction that the two workmen involved in this appeal be paid compensation of ₹ 1,25,000 (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand) each in full and final settlement of all claims including that of reinstatement. The payment shall be spread over a period from 11.11.1972 till date for the purpose of Income-tax. C.A. No. 4116 (NL) of 1984 was on the board, but the paper book is not available. Hence it is delinked from the series. C.A. Nos. 512-513 of 1984 and C.A No. 783 of 1984 were wrongly placed on the board. Their subject matters are different and hence are delinked from this cluster to be heard separately by an appropriate bench. Appeals disposed
-
1990 (5) TMI 228
... ...
... ... ..... ared void not affecting the rights of the petitioner. In view of the fact that entry No. 71 of Schedule B of S.R.O. No. 80 dated March 12, 1982, has been held to be discriminatory and unconstitutional, the second-hand clothes and footwear are to be treated at par for the purposes of taxation under the Act. The assessment of the petitioner made on the basis of entry No. 71 of Schedule B of S.R.O. No. 80 dated March 12, 1982, is therefore set aside and the petitioner held not liable to pay the amount demanded under the entry which has been declared unconstitutional and discriminatory. This would not however debar the respondents from imposing the tax upon dealers dealing in the trade of second-hand clothes whether imported from outside or locally purchased. Under the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. The interim order of the court dated December 8, 1986, shall stand vacated and C.M.P. No. 2489 of 1986 disposed of. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (5) TMI 227
... ...
... ... ..... 1989 questioning the genuineness of M/s. Vivek Engineering Works. The applicant will be at liberty to produce materials before the new Additional Commissioner in support of their contentions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the order dated December 12, 1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Revision Case No. 635/88-89 is hereby set aside. The said revision case shall be heard and disposed of afresh by an Additional Commissioner other than Shri S.K. Basu and such Additional Commissioner be selected by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. Selection of the Additional Commissioner should be done within a fortnight from this day and the revision case shall be heard afresh and disposed of within two months thereafter. In disposing of the revision case the new Additional Commissioner shall keep in view the observations made by us in this order. The case is, thus, finally disposed of. No order is made as to costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (5) TMI 226
... ...
... ... ..... e could not meet the above plea. It is true that the assessing authority did not carry out the directions contained in the order of remit regarding the cross-examination of Shri C.A. George. That aspect was necessary only to sustain the estimated addition. Non-examination of C.A. George may affect or put in peril the estimate made by the assessing authority. In our opinion, that question, by any stretch of imagination, cannot affect the assessment of the conceded turnover of the assessee. In this view, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal committed a grave error in setting aside the assessment of the year 1981-82 in toto. It has failed to apply its mind and has acted mechanically and arbitrarily. The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated March 7, 1989, in so far as it related to the assessment for the year 1981-82, is set aside. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 225
... ...
... ... ..... t from mere crossing sleepers or any other kind of sleepers mentioned in section 14(iv)(xiii) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Having gone through the processes of manufacture done by the applicant, they become commercially different commodities and such commodities are not enumerated in any of the clauses or sub-clauses of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That being so, turnout sleepers or turnout steel sleepers are not declared goods under sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Therefore, the authorities below rightly disallowed the claim and rightly held that sales of those goods were exigible to sales tax. 11.. In the result, the application fails. The applicant is not entitled to any relief. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of the authorities below. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree Application dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 224
... ...
... ... ..... nder any law that the unit cannot commence production by use of part of machinery and D.G. set and definitely to avoid industry being sick the petitioners started partial production by oven and hand operated tools, small machines and D.G. set and all these items are machinery but this date cannot be treated as date of starting production in view of mandatory provisions of section 4-A and various notifications of State Government. 6.. That the petitioners had already made advances for machine on 4th February, 1985, as per annexure IV to this petition and full plant was received in June, 1985, as per copies of bills attached to this petition. All these machines are being used in manufacturing process. It is evident that the said new theory, factual in nature, cannot be entertained for the first time in this writ petition. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 11th January, 1989, is vacated. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 223
Whether the direct recruits and promotees were in the same cadre or held posts in two separate and distinct cadres?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.
If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.
Thus the posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.
-
1990 (5) TMI 222
... ...
... ... ..... e applicant, our interim order dated July 10, 1989, should stand vacated and we should direct the appropriate Commercial Tax Officer to consider and dispose of within two weeks from this day any application for declaration forms which may be already pending with him and to do so within two weeks from the date of fresh application, if any, filed hereafter. In doing so, he should act in accordance with law and also our findings and observations in this judgment. We direct accordingly. We further direct that if the applicant has made a security deposit of Rs. 50,000 in terms of our interim order, the amount shall be adjusted against any due tax, or if there be no such tax due, the amount or such part thereof that cannot be so adjusted shall be refunded to the applicant within twelve weeks from this day. The application is, thus, finally disposed of without costs. B.C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman).-I agree. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (5) TMI 221
... ...
... ... ..... any authority is being impugned as ultra vires or such authority has refused to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. The object of filing the writ petition seems to be to forestall the penalty proceedings likely to be taken against the petitioners, and if possible, to procure the release of goods on the strength of experts evidence. We find no convincing grounds to invoke our writ jurisdiction by exercising our discretion in favour of the petitioners. It would be open to the petitioners to raise such a plea, if so advised, in the penalty proceedings, if any, or in the assessment proceedings as and when the same are taken in due course. In any case we are not prepared to grant a writ only for the purpose of procuring experts evidence. For what has been stated above, this petition is without any merit and is summarily rejected. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the petitioners, if possible, within one week on payment of usual charges. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 220
... ...
... ... ..... ry or subsidiary matters relating to the primary head of tax on sale of goods. To the same effect is the decision reported in Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1667. From these it is clear that sections 5, 5A and 8 can be justified as legislation coming under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. What is imposed is purchase tax and the same is exigible as mentioned in section 5A. Section 8 of the Act provides for termination of the series for the purpose of fixing the last purchase point within the State. These are provisions relating to sale or purchase tax and matters ancillary and incidental thereof and in pith and substance section 8 also can be justified as coming under entry 54 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. These sections are not unconstitutional or ultra vires in view of entries 92A and 92B of List I of the Seventh Schedule. I do not find any merit in the original petition. The original petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 219
... ...
... ... ..... assessment and not because of failure to make payment of tax payable after assessment. Consequently, we find that this is a case where the imposition of penalty or the charging of interest cannot be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The case is accordingly, liable to succeed. We make it clear that our finding is confined to the demands for interest and penalty relating to the assessment under the BFST Act, 1941 only. We refrain from making any observations with regard to the demands on those accounts under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 20.. The case, therefore, succeeds in part in so far as it relates to the BFST Act, 1941. The claim of the applicant relating to interest and penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, may be pursued by them before the appropriate forum. The case, accordingly, is allowed in part. Parties to bear their own costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 218
... ...
... ... ..... decide the same in view of our aforesaid order setting aside the summary assessment. The authorities concerned in their own interest will do well to look into this aspect and act in accordance with law. In the result the impugned orders are set aside, the summary assessment dated 20th March, 1989 is cancelled. The Superintendent of Taxes is directed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To avoid delay in making fresh assessment, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Taxes on 25th June, 1990, for the purpose of assessment on which date the Superintendent of Taxes shall hear the petitioner. If it is not possible to conduct the hearing for any reason, he shall fix another date/dates on which date/dates also the petitioner shall appear. No formal notice shall be necessary. With the aforesaid direction this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 217
... ...
... ... ..... nts could not file any opposition with regard to the contention now urged before us. He, however, conceded that this was a question of law and he could not controvert the factual position that on the relevant date, namely, January 8, 1988, the competent authority to effect the seizure was the Assistant Commissioner. It follows, therefore, that the seizure effected by the Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction. This being the position, it is not necessary for us to enter into the other points raised in the application. The preliminary objection succeeds. The seizure accordingly has to be set aside. The order imposing the penalty must necessarily fail along with it. The sum of Rs. 1,500 deposited by the applicant in order to obtain release of the goods is liable to be refunded. The case is thus disposed of. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,500 to the applicant within four weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 216
... ...
... ... ..... at the impugned orders passed by the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner of Taxes rejecting the petition for rectification are not tenable and the same are accordingly set aside. The Superintendent of Taxes is directed to consider the revised return, give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner to produce necessary evidence and materials in support of his revised return and to make a fresh assessment thereafter in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the revised return is not traceable in their records. It will facilitate quick disposal of the case by the Superintendent of Taxes if the petitioner is directed to furnish an authenticated copy thereof. We see no objection in allowing the request. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to submit a duly authenticated copy of the revised return to the Superintendent of Taxes within two weeks from today. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 215
... ...
... ... ..... s based on materials which were not disclosed to the assessee, the order of assessment would be vitiated. 5.. Following the aforesaid decision we are of the opinion that it was incumbent on the part of the Superintendent of Taxes to inform the petitioner the materials or to furnish the necessary information gathered by him in regard to the market rate of tea prevailing at the particular time to enable it to submit its explanation in that regard. That having not been done the impugned orders of assessment are vitiated and cannot be sustained. 6.. In view of what has been stated, the impugned orders of assessment for the years April 1, 1979-March 31, 1980, April 1, 1980March 31, 1981 and April 1, 1981-March 31, 1982, are set aside. The Superintendent of Taxes may supply the necessary information to the petitioner and after giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing pass a fresh order. 7.. In the result, the petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 214
... ...
... ... ..... thing cannot be otherwise got without undue delay, (iii) he must record in writing the grounds of his belief, and (iv) he must specify in such writing so far as possible the thing for which search is to be made. 14.. The records relating to the search and seizure in this case do not disclose that the respondent had recorded any such reason before embarking upon the search of the petitioner s premises about the formation of belief that the petitioner was attempting evasion of tax. Therefore, the seizure order passed by the respondent does not satisfy the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The seizure order, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 15.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the seizure dated August 3, 1984 (annexure A) is quashed. As a consequence the respondent is directed to return the seized books and other documents to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 213
Raw Naphtha - Exemption - Judicial propriety ... ... ... ... ..... rocess of manufacture did not fall within Section 5A(1) of the Act. The same ruling was given in respect of lime shell and consumed stores which-had been used only in the maintenance of the kiln and the factory. The facts in the present case are distinguishable and, with great respect, we are of the view that the cited judgment does not apply. Here naphtha was procured with the intention of manufacturing fertilizer and but for the shut-down of the fertilizer plant owing to power problems, would have been used for the manufacture of fertilizer. It was not intended for any other purpose. 7. emsp Having expressed our views as above, we are conscious that, in all judicial propriety and discipline, we should consider ourselves bound by the decision of the earlier 3-Member Bench - see the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 521 (Del). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals following the ratio of the previous decision of the Tribunal.
-
1990 (5) TMI 212
Import - OGL - Parts imported not covered under warranty ... ... ... ... ..... y installed at their factory in Mohali rdquo . 6. emsp In view of the aforesaid submission we give the appellants an opportunity to produce a valid licence for clearance of the goods. In case a valid licence is produced and accepted by the department the confiscation of the goods shall stand set aside. However, if the appellants are unable to produce a valid licence, the goods will remain confiscated. However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstance of the case and also the fact that the appellants are actual users, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy-five thousand only) to Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only). 7. emsp As regards the personal penalty of Rs. 2,500/- imposed on the appellants, we do not find much justification for the same in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only). 8. emsp Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (5) TMI 211
Confiscation of goods - Export - Attempt to illegal export - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... e overt acts already done are such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be completely harmless. Applying the above test to this case, if it is assumed that the goods were found by the side of the road, it can only be said that the act already done is such that if the respondent changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, it would be completely harmless. Thus, taking into consideration all these aspects of the case, at best it can be said that it may amount to a preparation. There is a long gap in between preparation and attempt and that gap should be filled in before the respondent is found guilty of the above said offence. Such evidence is missing in this case and the learned Collector (Appeals) has already given the benefit to the respondent. I find no reason to interfere with the above orders and find no infirmity in the above said order. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 210
Di-Calcium Phosphate - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... on 11C do not provide for a provision for refund in respect of duty which has been paid by the manufacturer. This question has been answered by this Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills case (supra) by holding that the benefit of a notification under Section 11C of the Act is also admissible to an assessee who has paid duty. In other words, the benefit of the notification is not only in matter of non-payment of duty but also eligibility to claim back the duty paid which need not have been paid. However, the question of limitation has to be gone into specially in the context of the submission of the appellants that they have been paying duty under protest. No arguments were advanced before us on this aspect. It is, therefore, necessary that this aspect has to be gone into by the lower authorities. For this purpose, we are remanding the matter to the Asstt. Collector who will afford due opportunity to the appellants to put forth their case on the aspect of limitation.
........
|
