|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 359 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 365
... ...
... ... ..... matter to induce any chemical reaction which results in fragrant odours being released from that substance. If we are right in taking this view dhoop and dhoop-battis manufactured by the respondent fall within the category of perfume under item 37 of the Government notification and are liable to tax imposed therein. Entry No. 37 mentioned above was in the following terms Scents and perfumes (in English) and Itra tatha sugandhian (in Hindi). It is, therefore, clear that dhoop and aggarbattis would now qualify to be assessed to tax at the enhanced rate of 10 per cent. In view of the facts stated above, the letters patent appeals are allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and it is held that the dealers would be liable to payment of sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent. As a consequence of the letters patent appeal having been allowed, Civil Writ Petition No. 821 of 1981 is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 364
... ...
... ... ..... liable to tax under this Act means the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by him in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce made during any prescribed period and determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. For the purpose of resolving the controversy in this case the distinction in the definition of turnover under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, does not make any difference. For the reasons given in the judgment in W.P. No. 4991 of 1988 pronounced today, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. The assessment order for the assessment year 1984-85 under the Central Sales Tax Act on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, to the extent it includes the subsidy as a part of turnover and brings it to tax is set aside. The proceedings under the Act in respect of other items will be decided according to law. No costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 363
... ...
... ... ..... red milk are not milk as contemplated by entry 10 of Schedule I to the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, also wrong in holding that Milkmaid full-cream condensed milk fell under residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act. The Tribunal was also wrong in holding that Nespray full-cream powdered milk was covered by entry 80 of the notification issued under section 49(2) of the Act. The Tribunal was, however, right in holding that neither of the two products was food-stuff or food provision as contemplated by entry 6 in Schedule III to the Act. Accordingly we answer the questions as under Question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs in these references. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 362
... ...
... ... ..... meaning of packing to that packing in which the goods are sold. Therefore, any and everything that facilitates storing or preservation of goods cannot fall within the expression intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale . 14.. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that fumigant covers, tarpaulins, nylon ropes, patramats were being used by the applicant merely for the purpose of preservation of foodgrains in storage. They were merely material for protection or storage of foodgrains, but they were not the material in which the goods were packed for sale. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in not granting application for amendment of registration certificate by inclusion of said four items in the certificate of registration. 15.. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., against the applicant and in favour of the State. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (3) TMI 361
... ...
... ... ..... e of the wholesaler on payment of cash. So the movement of goods from the factory cannot be said to have any nexus with any particular indent. It is also clear that the goods are sent in truck-loads at regular intervals having regard to the requirements of each depot as each depot has specified limits of storing capacities. A similar treatment of the other transaction is given in another paragraph 14 at page 7 in the same way as the wholesale transaction in favour of M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores, Bangalore. This is how the transactions are being conducted. There was no movement of specific goods from the factory to the wholesalers in pursuance of any prior order being placed by the wholesalers on the depots as indented by the wholesalers. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that it is not a case of inter-State sale of goods at all. With these remarks, the tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 360
... ...
... ... ..... paid amount of tax from the principal without resorting to reassessment proceedings. Section 22 makes the commission agent and the principal jointly and severally liable to pay the tax. It is a provision which creates liability for payment of tax, but it does not provide the procedure for assessment of the tax and, therefore, even in respect of the liability arising as a result of section 22 of the Act, the procedure for assessment provided in the Act has to be followed. Admittedly, the demand notice has been issued without reassessment and without determining the liability of the opponent in respect of those commission sales. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding the action of the Sales Tax Officer as without any authority of law. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (3) TMI 359
... ...
... ... ..... The alternative submission of the assessee that even if the sale was not exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Act, the same could not be subjected to levy under the Tamil Nadu Act is totally misconceived and needs a notice only to be rejected. Since the transaction between the Bangalore manufacturer and the assessee was an inter-State sale while the transaction between the assessee and SPIC was an intra-State sale, and the appropriation of goods had taken place within Tamil Nadu as per the terms of the contract, the sale by the assessee, a dealer based in Madras, to SPIC at Tuticorin would be strictly governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act and assessable and subject to levy under the State Act only. 12.. Thus, for what we have said above, we do not find any cause for interference with the orders of assessment, as upheld by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The revisions fail and are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 358
... ...
... ... ..... bags were sold free. The price was inclusive. The question as to whether there is an agreement to sell packing material is a pure question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each case. Whether packing material was subject to any agreement, express or implied, needs to be determined and would depend upon the nature of the transaction. On the basis of the admission of the assessee and keeping in view the nature of the transaction that what was sold was not merely rice or paddy but the same along with the packing material, that is. gunny bags, the Board of Revenue rightly found that the price of gunny bags was liable to be included in the taxable turnover. The order of the assessing authority was, therefore, rightly restored by the Board of Revenue. 9.. Thus, for what we have noticed above, we find that the order of the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 357
... ...
... ... ..... he Central Excises and Salt Act. In reading this section, the Tribunal referred to and relied upon the language and meaning of the word cotton fabric after its amendment by the Central Excises and Salt Act and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, being Ordinance No. 12 of 1970. Therefore, for the reasons extensively stated by us in our judgment in Sales Tax Reference No. 14 of 1981 , we hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the rubberised cotton hose pipes and rubberised cotton-cum-synthetic fibre hose pipes produced and sold by the opponent would fall within the definition of cotton fabric as contained in item No. 19 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 7.. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the State and in favour of the opponent. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative. Reported as Shah Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 1992 85 STC 515 (Guj).
-
1991 (3) TMI 356
... ...
... ... ..... essing authority shall arrive at the market price that should have been charged by the dealer and levy tax on the taxable value so arrived at. However, in the instant case, the assessment relates to the year 1976-77 and neither section 12-A nor rule 18-C would have any application. Since, the succeeding assessing authority exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order of the assessing authority as also of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Recourse to section 16 of the Act could not be had in matters of under-assessment, as it has application to cases of escaped assessment only. The power to assess escaped turnover under section 16 has normally to be exercised in matters de hors the original assessment, which admittedly was not the position in this case. We, therefore, find that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 355
... ...
... ... ..... tion and interprets a provision of law, while doing so, it cannot be said to be laying down any law for the State or settling the law for the State. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant, that whatever Tribunal decides is binding on the subordinate authorities including the Commissioner, but that is because the Tribunal is a superior authority in the hierarchy of administration. Merely for that reason, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to have the effect of deciding or settling law for the State. In our opinion, the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee had failed to make out sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal to the Tribunal within the prescribed time. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the department. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (3) TMI 354
... ...
... ... ..... was relied upon by the Tribunal is clearly distinguishable and would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 7-A of the Act would be attracted as it has been found that there was a despatch of the crushed bones to a place outside the State of Tamil Nadu and that the said despatch was not in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Learned counsel for the assessee could not support the order of the Tribunal in the face of the judgment in Ponnu Saw Mills v. State of Tamil Nadu 1980 45 STC 291 (Mad.). We, therefore, hold that the transaction in the instant case would fall within clause (c) of section 7-A(1) of the Act and the order of the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority holding otherwise, cannot be sustained. Those orders are consequently set aside. The order of the assessing authority is, therefore, restored. Both the tax cases are decided accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 353
... ...
... ... ..... d a few words of my own. A reading of section 14C of the Act and rule 90AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, clearly shows that when a transporter carrying notified goods enters the first check-post within the State of West Bengal for using the State as a corridor for going to another State, he has to declare in form XXXC at the first check-post. Such forms are admittedly available only at that check-post. In that situation, in this particular case, the driver of lorry No. OSS 6713 should have been given an opportunity to make such declaration in the prescribed form, as he wanted such an opportunity. No such opportunity having been given, the detention was illegal and void. I also agree that the proceedings were void, because section 14C does not contemplate any such proceedings against the owner of the goods. That section clearly contemplates proceedings against only a transporter , which term has been defined in the explanation added to the section. Application allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 352
... ...
... ... ..... should be granted from the date of receipt of copy of this order, rejecting the revision petition, because the revision petition was in continuation of the proceedings of the final assessment. We do not propose to decide this question because there is no such pleading before us except the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that the petitioner intends to make such a claim. In case any such claim is filed on behalf of the petitioner, the assessing authority shall be duty bound to consider his claim, particularly in view of the fact that the final assessment made by the assessing authority is final subject to appeal and revision, and his order cannot be presumed as final in cases, where appeals and revisions are preferred until the appeals and revisions are finally concluded. Be that as it may, on the facts of the case, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. The tax cases are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 351
... ...
... ... ..... tually transported to that State. This was found after verification. That being the position, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where a token penalty will meet the ends of justice, although there was a technical violation of the provisions of law. Therefore, we would like to reduce the amount of penalty as revised by the Assistant Commissioner to a mere token penalty of Rs. 5,000. Accordingly, the order of penalty dated October 4, 1989 and the revisional order dated April 3, 1990, passed by the Assistant Commissioner are modified to the extent that the amount of penalty imposed shall be Rs. 5,000 in place of Rs. 35,000 as reduced in the revisional order of the Assistant Commissioner. The amount of penalty which may have been deposited in excess of Rs. 5,000 shall be refunded to the applicant No. 2, Shyam Biri Works (Pvt.) Ltd. within two weeks from this date. The main application is, thus, disposed of. No order is made as to costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 350
... ...
... ... ..... metics Act, 1940, the goods were not liable to be assessed to tax under item 95 of the First Schedule and the same could be taxed at multi-point rate only. There is no warrant for such an observation. The requirement to take out a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determining the liability to sales tax on the total taxable turnover of the assessee. Item 95 of the First Schedule is not restricted only to allopathic medicines, but would also cover country drugs, as manufactured by the assessee. In our considered opinion, therefore the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the country drugs manufactured and sold by the assessee were taxable at 8 per cent under item 95 of the First Schedule to the Act. 5.. Thus, in view of the above discussion, both the tax revision petitions fail and they are dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 349
... ...
... ... ..... l that has to be determined is whether there was any concealment of particulars or whether inaccurate particulars had been furnished which has resulted in the returning figures below the real amount. The element of mens rea is not included in section 22-A. The absence of mens rea may be a relevant circumstance for determining as to the amount of penalty which may be leviable but if the ingredients of section 22-A are satisfied then a penalty has to be levied. In the present case, however, we find that the ingredients of section 22-A were not attracted. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer question Nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) in favour of the dealer and question No. (iii) in favour of the department. In view of our answer to question No. (iv) in favour of the dealer, then notwithstanding our answer to question No. (iii) against the dealer, the effect would be that no penalty under section 22-A would be leviable. There will be no order as to costs. References answered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 348
... ...
... ... ..... deration while interpreting a tax law are totally irrelevant. These goods are commercially well-known and are different commodities. Looking to all these circumstances, I am of the view that mill board, grey board, pulp board, duplex board and triplex board do not fall in entry No. 4 of the Government Notification dated 6th September, 1977 and tax cannot be charged on these items treating them as falling under entry No. 4 of the Government notification. Consequently, the revision is allowed, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and also of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, are set aside and it is held that mill board, pulp board, (sic), duplex board and triplex board are not covered with the terminology of the expression card-board, hard board and soft board and other items mentioned in entry No. 4 of the Government Notification dated 6th September, 1977, and, therefore, are not taxable at the rate of 10 per cent. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 347
... ...
... ... ..... ot expressly governed by the language of the Government Order. If any such indulgence is to be resorted to by a statutory body like the Tribunal, the ultimate result will be one of arbitrariness depending upon the whims and fancies of the Tribunal or the economic predilections of the Tribunal, for which there can be no scope in the scheme of our legal system. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation whatever in holding that the Tribunal went beyond the scope of its powers and, as a matter of fact, unreasonably and unwarrantedly extended the applicability of the Government Order in question to a case to which the terms of the Government Order, neither expressly nor by implication, applied. (Emphasis supplied). The above judgment is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 6.. Thus for what we have said above, we find no merit in these tax revision cases and the same are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 346
... ...
... ... ..... n with milk. At the most, it makes a delicious food drink when it is taken along with milk. Merely because it supplies some nourishment and sustenance, it cannot be equated with food-stuff or food provision. It is not used by common people and is not normally taken as food by normal persons. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State that since it is described by the manufacturers themselves as a food drink, it should be regarded as a food-stuff or a food provision. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that as Bournvita is neither a food-stuff nor a food provision, it would not be covered by entry 6 of Schedule III but by residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the Act. The question is, therefore, answered accordingly, i.e., against the State and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
