|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 286 Records
-
1991 (9) TMI 332 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ee had deposited the tax as per the returns filed and quite another set of consequences would flow if the assessee had not deposited the tax due as per the returns filed because in the later eventuality applicability of provisions of section 10(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) would flow automatically whereas in the former eventuality the applicability of section 10(6) of the Act may be doubtful. Since no positive finding has been recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the fact as to whether the assessee had paid the tax due in accordance with the returns filed by him, the question is returned unanswered with the directions to the Tribunal to record a clear finding as to whether the assessee had made the payment of tax due from him under the Act according to the return filed or not and accordingly reframe the question of law for the opinion of this Court. With the above observations, the reference is returned unanswered. No costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce. So far as Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Studio Ratan Batra Private Ltd. 1975 35 STC 522 (Bom) is concerned, the substance of the contract in that case was for the preparation and supply of designs and it was in that context held that the material involved in the preparation and supply of the design, namely, the piece of paper upon which the design was drawn and the ink or paint with which it was drawn, were merely incidental and that the real essence of the contract was the skill of the artists who draw the design for the customers. That case has not even the remotest application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case where the products were sold with the materials manufactured as per the specifications based on the designs prepared according to the specifications furnished by the customers. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error whatsoever. The revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed, with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of K.E. Mathai and Sons and K.P. Kurian and, therefore, they presumed that the movement of the goods had taken place as a result of a prior contract. There is no material on the records to support this view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the assessing authority. 7.. In view of what we have noticed above, we are of the opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the sales in question were not inter-State sales and that the movement of the goods had not taken place as a result of any covenant or incidence of a prior contract of sale between the assessee and the buyers in Kerala State and also that the goods had been transported by the assessee itself to Kerala and sold in Kerala are sound and based on the material on record. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error whatsoever. The revisions have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 329 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it cannot be said that section 7(2-C) of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Legislature. The method of collection of tax or deduction of tax at source does not affect the essence of the duty but it only relates to the machinery of collection for administrative purposes. It will therefore be clear that the aforesaid provision is a machinery provision, meant to secure the Government revenue and to check the evasion of payment of tax. It is well-known that the contractors are also from outsiders of the State, and the possibility cannot be excluded that in their cases and even in cases of contractors from within the State recovery of tax after assessment may not always be smooth. In our opinion, the provisions of rule 46(2) of the Rules are reasonable and we hold accordingly. 9.. Consequently, we find no merit in any of these writ petitions. They are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Stay orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 328 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , rights and liabilities, etc. In Raja Stores case 1987 65 STC 82 this Court found on the facts of that case that there was no material to show that there was transfer of liabilities, assets, furniture, goodwill, etc., and therefore, came to the conclusion that liability in terms of section 19(1) was not attracted. In the case at hand, we find that the Assistant Commissioner has recorded a finding that there was no transfer of goodwill and other benefits in favour of the assessee. This finding of fact was not upset by the Tribunal. Therefore, on the facts of the case, we are of the view that the entire business was not transferred so as to attract liability under section 19(1) of the Act, and the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was liable to pay tax from the date of commencement of its business. The references are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 327 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts before the assessing authority as to the transaction of supply of food being by way of sale or was in lieu of package of services (ii) Transactions in hotels and restaurants where dominant object was sale were taxable all through. It is for the assessing authority to ascertain from the facts and to determine that sale of food supplied was intended if such question is raised by the dealer claiming exemption under section 6(2)(a) of the Act (iii) Transactions where dominant object is service, are not to be taxed between the period from 7th September, 1978 to 2nd February, 1983, and thereafter till 7th April, 1984 (date of amendment of the definition of sale in the Act), if no tax has been collected by the assessee and (iv) The assessing officer has to give opportunity to the assessee to show that no tax was collected. The burden of proof is on the latter. The reference is accordingly answered. B.L. HANSARIA, C.J.-I agree. L. RATH, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 326 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s for any assessment. The date when material was discovered is not relevant. What is material is the nature of evidence or material discovered during inspection. If materials discovered relate to any particular assessment year, those cannot be utilised for making assessment for other Reported in 1993 88 STC 473 (Orissa) FB supra. years, unless their relevance to any other period is established by the assessing officer. Similar view was expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Babu Ram Vishnoi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1972 29 STC 392 and Hukam Chand Mahendra Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1972 29 STC 394. In the case at hand, no material of relevance has been indicated to justify the estimation of daily sales for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Therefore, the fixation of liability with effect from April 1, 1980, cannot be sustained. We accordingly answer the questions. There shall be no order as to costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 325 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ra vires, fails. We hold so. The only other plea is that section 5A of the Act is not workable in the absence of rule framed for the purpose. Section 16(1) of the Act was pressed into service in that connection. The learned single Judge considered the matter in detail and held that the taxable turnover under section 5A is to be taxed at the rates mentioned in section 5 of the Act and there is no separate procedure prescribed for assessing a dealer under section 5A of the Act. The same procedure and method of assessment adopted under section 5 of the Act is to be resorted to in cases where section 5A of the Act is also attracted. We are in agreement with the view so expressed by the learned single Judge. The plea, that the turnover falling under section 5A of the Act cannot be brought to tax in the absence of rules, also fails. 3.. No other point was raised in the writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed. Reported in 1992 84 STC 514 (Ker).
-
1991 (9) TMI 324 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... islature. This restriction, for practical purposes, on the exercise of those powers is not because those powers are controlled by the provisions of the Code but because it should be presumed that the procedure specifically provided by the Legislature for orders in certain circumstances is dictated by the interests of justice. 7.. The inherent powers cannot be exercised to negate what is specifically denied by the statute. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and we find that the learned President of the Sales Tax Tribunal has rightly held that he has no jurisdiction to grant a stay and has, therefore, rightly refused the application. There being no impropriety or illegality in the impugned order, the writ petition to stand summarily dismissed. 8.. At this stage Shri Surte, the learned counsel for the petitioners, orally applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave refused. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 323 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as directed above with liberty to the second respondent to then proceed to recover the entire balance then due in accordance with law, we direct the second respondent to issue in favour of the petitioners latest by Tuesday, 1st October, 1991, registration certificate under section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. (d) This order does not affect the petitioners liability in law to pay current sales tax as and when the same falls due. (e) This order is without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioners to recover the arrears of sales tax dues, which the petitioners would under this order be paying to the second respondent, from the original owner. This order is also without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to recover, if so advised, the arrears or sales tax dues from the original owner in accordance with law. 6.. Order accordingly on this petition, which is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (9) TMI 322 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnover in respect of any such goods, with effect from such date as may be notified in that behalf, so, however, that the rate does not exceed eight per cent. A reading of the said clause shows that in case of goods not falling in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3-A, the sales tax will be levied at the time of sale by the manufacturer or importer at a particular rate. The question, therefore, arose whether the assessee was a manufacturer or an importer. Evidently there can be no question of a manufacturer in the case of poppy seeds. The only other question is whether he was an importer. No finding has been recorded by the authorities below that the assessee herein was an importer of poppy seeds. Just because his books were rejected, an inference does not arise that he is an importer. There must be some material for raising such inference. For the reasons recorded above, this revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 321 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ade sold, it was not a discount on the price . This argument was rejected by the Tribunal, and, in my opinion, rightly. Discount is given in various shapes and in various manner. It is only an incentive given by the seller to the purchaser to boost sales or gain goodwill or for any other such purpose. Discount may be given in any manner, but it ultimately relates to the price of the article sold. In the present case, no doubt, the discount is given calculated on each ton of the chemical fertilizers sold, but it is deducted from the bill and share certificates in the amount deducted are issued in the name of the purchaser. It is ultimately reflected in the price only. In such a situation, I see no reason why the benefit of clause (ii) of explanation II to section 2(i) of the Act should not be allowed to the assessee. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. This order shall also govern Sales Tax Revision Nos. 6 of 1988 and 8 of 1988 also. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ands of the Madras society at 3 per cent and the same had been remitted to the State of Tamil Nadu and, therefore, a second levy on the same goods by the State of Tamil Nadu was improper and illegal. This argument is based on sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This plea is covered against the assessee by the decision in Sri Rajeswari Company v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 38 STC 134. The ratio is Although section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, prohibits the imposition or authorising the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods under a State law at more than one stage and at a rate exceeding three per cent, it does not prohibit the imposition of Central sales tax more than once.......... 4.. Consequently, for the reasons given by the statutory authorities, the exemption claimed as second inter-State sales cannot be granted. The levy is confirmed and the tax case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 319 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch a device. As a noun, it means a device for shooting out such a jet or jets. Sprayer means one who, that which, sprays device for spraying. 5.. On the facts of the case, the Tribunal found that the sprayer is an instrument which transmitted force from one point to another. The Tribunal referred to both the dictionary meaning and the context in which it is understood in common parlance, and came to hold that the sprayer is a machinery. Keeping in view the accepted concepts in which the machinery and sprayer are understood, and in view of the factual conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was correct in its finding that sprayer is a machinery, and was taxable at the rate applicable to machinery under serial No. 65 of the list of goods subject to sales tax. Our answer, therefore, is in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (9) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y taxed the turnover of Rs. 82,104.42 only as first sales of boards. There is no indication at all that the boards were sold as waste boards. Neither in the reply to the pre-assessment notice nor in the grounds of appeal before the appellate authority or in the reply to the notice of the Joint Commissioner, has the assessee claimed that the boards purchased from Calcutta had been mixed with other waste papers and sold only as waste papers. The appellate authority had merely adopted ipse dixit of the assessee in the grounds of appeal. We are convinced that the appellate authority fell into an error while holding that the turnover was assessable only at multi-point rate and not under entry 117 of the First Schedule. The Joint Commissioner was fully justified in invoking the suo motu powers and setting aside the order of the appellate authority. Consequently, the appeal has no merits and accordingly it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the language for discovering the transactions. The Tribunal has also failed to take note of the fact that all the watch sales had not been shown in the so-called books of account. The finding in State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation 1978 41 STC 165 (Mad.) was that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the sales were not liable to tax at all and therefore did not file declaration forms under section 3(3). The Tribunal ought not to have relied on this judgment because it is clearly distinguishable. On facts of the case the conclusion is inescapable that the penal provisions are attracted. The Tribunal had been too lenient in dealing with a recalcitrant assessee. We have no hesitation in setting aside its order and restoring the penalty of Rs. 1,72,334 as imposed by the assessing authority and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The revision succeeds and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 316 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t necessary to be a domestic electrical appliance that it must be actually used in the home or the house. It must be of a kind which is generally used for household purposes. It appears to us that the types of items concerned in this appeal are generally used for household purposes and that is sufficiently good test for classification in the light of the explanation to tariff item No. 33C. Thus, we hold that use of a particular sewing machine either for a garment factory or for domestic purpose will not have any bearing with regard to a taxable event. From this point of view we fully agree with the learned single Judge and hold that the sewing machines are not exigible to levy of entry tax as Industrial machinery under entry 7. Turning to costs, we find that this is not a fit case for award of costs, more so when the matter rests on interpretation. Accordingly we set aside only that part of the judgment relating to costs, and confirm the judgment on merits. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (9) TMI 315 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cause of any contract of sale with Bombay buyers. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention in view of the fact that all the lower authorities have concurrently found on facts before them that all the fifty-five transactions of sale took place in the same manner and the movement of goods was effected from Gujarat to Maharashtra because of such transaction of sale. We may note at this stage that from the questions referred to us for our decision no question is specifically referred to us which would call upon us to decide as to whether there was any error in appreciation of evidence or the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal or all the lower authorities were in any case perverse. We, therefore, do not think we can accept this submission of Mr. Joshi. 18.. In the result, we answer all the three questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the State and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (9) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case fully. 3.. From a perusal of the orders of the Joint Commissioner we find that the benefit of the exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Act was denied to the appellant without going into the question as to whether and to what extent the essential prerequisites stipulated in section 5(3) of the Central Act had been fulfilled by the turnover and the transactions in question. These are matters which require proper verification with reference to the relevant record. While, therefore, setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner and restoring that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we clarify that the assessing authority, to whom the matter stood remanded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner shall consider the case of the appellant in the light of the declaration of law made by this Court in Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 82 STC 355. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (9) TMI 313 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ave been deducted. So delivery was recognised as a post-sale activity all along before the self-same goods were notified under 1954 Act. It is not the case of the respondents that the modus operandi of the transaction had undergone a change since then. 104.. In view of the position indicated above, it is held that delivery charges in these cases do not constitute sale price. In the result, the applications in RN-415(T) of 1989, RN-431 of 1989, RN-354 of 1990, RN-130 of 1991 and RN-512 of 1989 are allowed on contest without costs. 105.. The applications in RN-413(T) of 1989 and RN-414(T) of 1989 are also allowed on contest without costs with the direction that the notices of suo motu revision be quashed. ORDER In accordance with the judgment of the majority, applications in RN-413(T) and RN-414(T) of 1989 are allowed and applications in RN-415(T) of 1989, RN-431 of 1989, RN-354 of 1990, RN 130 of 1991 and RN-512 of 1989 are dismissed in terms of paragraph 51 of this judgment.
........
|
