|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , nothing more was to be done. (24) Lastly, it is urged by Mr. Jaitley that the principles of natural justice demand that an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to cross-examine Mr. S. A. Khan, DLW's Inspector, to elicit the truth as to which of the two inspection reports is genuine. We do not feel persuaded to do so. As is observed by the Supreme Court in State of J&K and others v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad & anr., , a right of hearing does not include a right to cross-examine and the right to cross-examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case. As already observed, there is no difference in both the reports on the crucial point of filing of TRW's works test certificate, which is sufficient to support respondents action. (25) In view of the above, we would not like to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee ₹ 2,500. Rule is discharged and all interim orders made earlier are hereby vacated.
-
1992 (1) TMI 342 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 341 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l was of the view since the vessel in the question do not ply, the assessee did not carry on any business. The assessee had to pay and incur hiring charges, maintenance costs for keeping the vessel ready for plying. But since no offer came for hiring of the vessel no income could be earned by the assessee. The fact that no income was earned for the vessel is not a ground to disallow the expenditure if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Tribunal while arriving at its finding. 7. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal should consider if the said expenditure on account of hiring and maintenance charges were incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in the judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 340 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... partly allowed and the judgement of the High Court to the extent it hold the ‘Surcharge’ is a levy different and distinct from land revenue is set aside and it is held that surcharge payable under the Assam Land Revenue and Land (Surcharge) Act, 1970 constitutes land revenue and had to be taken into account for assessing compensation under S.12 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956. The view of the High Court that the local rate payable under the Local Rates Regulation 1879, is to be excluded for the purpose of assessing such compensation, is upheld. The order of the High Court setting aside the judgement and order of the District Judge, dated July 1, 1981 in Misc. Appeal No.5 of 1979 is maintained. The matter will go back to the District Judge, Dibrugarh, for re-determination of the compensation payable to the appellant in Misc. Appeal No.5 of 1979 in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 339 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Section 210 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1877, came up for interpretation which was a provision similar to Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The interpretation which was given was to the effect that an order under Section 210 of the Civil Procedure Code alters the decree and the decree can be executed only subject to such alteration. In the present case, counsel for the revisionist has not argued that any modification or alteration in the decree was made or sought. In view of this fact, the aforesaid case is also not applicable to the present case. In my opinion, an order under Order 20, Rule 11(2), Civil Procedure Code, for payment of the decretal amount in instalments can be passed only with the consent of the decree-holder and the court below was right in rejecting the application of the judgment-debtor/revisionist for the relief of making the payment of the decretal amount in instalments. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is dismissed summarily.
-
1992 (1) TMI 338 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of demand, under Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, for maintenance of excise staff for supervision of the manufacture of industrial alcohol was assailed on lack of legiislative competence of the State
Held that:- The Bench in Synthetic & Chemical's case [1989 (10) TMI 214 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] made it clear that even though the power to levy tax or duty on industrial alcohol vested in the Central Government the State was still left with power to lay down regulations to ensure that non-potable alcohol,that is, industrial alcohol, was not diverted and misused as substitute for potable alcohol. This is enough to justify a provision like 58A. In paragraph 88 of the decision it was observed that in respect of industrial alcohol the States were not authorised to impose the impost as they have purported to do in that case but that did not effect any imposition of fee where there were circumstances to establish that there was quid pro quo for the fee nor it will affect any regulatory measure. This completely demolishes the argument on behalf of appellant. Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sideration of its power under s.45L when the directions were issued . Even otherwise s.45K (3) itself is sufficient to uphold the directions. The impugned directions are thus within the power of the R.B.I. to provide tardy, stable, identifiable and monitorable method of operations by each R.N.B.C. and its compliance of the directions. This will ensure security to the depositors at all times and also make the accounts of the company accurate, accountable and easy to monitor the working system of the company itself and continuance of its workmen. The directions in paragraphs 6 and 12 are just, fair and reasonable not only to the depositors, but in the long run to the very existence of the company and its continued business itself. Therefore, they are legal, valid and constitutionally permissible. The Writ Petition is dismissed and the appeals are allowed. The Writ Petitions filed in the High Court stand dismissed. No costs in this Court. G.N. Petition dismissed Appeals allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 336 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... main the same. The G.P. sheets purchased by the assessee were turned into various sizes and shapes. The original commodity underwent a change. A new and distinct commodity emerged out of manufacturing process. The denial of exemption, in such circumstances, is proper. The test or principles to be borne in mind in evaluating the issue raised in this case is well-settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1974 34 STC 103 at page 110, Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana 1973 32 STC 623 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Achamma Sebastian v. State of Kerala (1967) 20 STC 483 (1967) KLT 832. These decisions have been followed by a Bench of this Court in Ambika Provision Stores v. State of Kerala 1987 67 STC 170 (1987) 2 KLT 99. 3.. We are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 335 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ed April 3, 1991, is set aside. It is hereby declared that the DGHC is entitled to concessional rate of tax under section 5(1)(cc) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, up to August 15, 1991. The interim order passed on June 19, 1991, is made absolute. 13.. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. 14.. We make no order as to costs. 15.. Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Representative submits at this stage for stay of operation of this judgment for three months. Mr. Bose, the learned advocate for the applicant, verbally submits for continuance of the interim order passed by this Tribunal on June 19, 1991, in case any order for stay of operation of this judgment is passed by this Tribunal. 16.. In the circumstances, after hearing Mr. T.N. De and Mr. S.N. Bose in the matter, we direct stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of eight weeks from this date. The interim order as passed on June 19, 1991, will continue in the meantime. Application allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 334 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is to be levied on the assessee, the officer has to follow the procedure. There is no inquiry made in this case. If the statements were obtained and the officer has verified them as read over and accepted by the assessee then the question of admission of said statement could have been examined by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The mistake of the officer in not verifying the statement shows that the said statements were not accepted as a correct one and are not admissible in law. The provisions of section 22(6)(b) require an inquiry by the officer. If there is an admission of the assessee of the guilt, then it could have been contended by the assessing authority that no inquiry was further necessary but where there is no proper admission, the assessing authority has to establish the case before levy of the penalty. The Tribunal was therefore, justified in quashing the penalty. No case for interference has been made out. The revision is rejected without any costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 333 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re separate and distinct would of course depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the particular case. Such thus being the situation as it now emerges, we reframe the question posed in the following terms Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that a partnership firm cannot make a transaction for sale to a partnership firm constituted by the same partners though with different shares therein. This question is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against Revenue, but with the further observation that whether or not the sale by Messrs. Punjab Oil Mills, Sarna to Messrs. Punjab Oil Mills, Damtal (H.P.) be deemed to be a sale by one distinct firm to another be determined afresh by the Assessing Authority, keeping in view the observations and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Kelukutty s case 1985 60 STC 7. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (1) TMI 332 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om the seizure of the chassis at any subsequent point. Indeed the Sales Tax Officer, S.I.B., who has passed the impugned order was expressly left free by the Assistant Commissioner to make the necessary probe and take appropriate action against Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., if found necessary. The seizure of the vehicle in these circumstances could not, therefore, be assailed on this ground either. Before concluding, however, we may add that the observations made herein are in relation only to the matter of seizure of the chassis and its release on the petitioner s furnishing appropriate security. The same should not, therefore, be construed as precluding an independent adjudication of the issues which may arise for consideration in the regular assessment/penalty proceedings which may be initiated in relation to the chassis in question either against the petitioner or Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 331 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with a view to prevent such a situation or to make good the loss likely to be suffered by the State Government, has thought it fit to provide for payment of interest on such amounts, then not only such a provision has to be regarded as reasonable but it will also have to be interpreted in a manner which would achieve that object. We, therefore, hold that on true interpretation, section 47(4-A) does provide for payment of interest right from the time of filing of the declarations or returns or from the date of expiry of the specified date, as the case may be, and that the sales tax authorities cannot be said to have acted illegally in demanding interest accordingly. Therefore, neither their action nor their orders passed in this behalf can be said to be illegal or bad. As we do not find any substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners these petitions fail. Rule issued in each of these petitions is discharged with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 330 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nor by its resolution dated 27th August, 1980, the Government had made a representation or held out a promise that exemption from payment of purchase tax under section 18 of the Act was also to be available for purchases of raw materials, i.e., sugarcane. We are also of the view that the petitioners did not understand the representation or promise in that manner and altered their position upon that basis. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the other contentions raised by the petitioners, namely, what is the effect of granting of eligibility certificate and that by issuing a notification of exemption from payment of tax under section 15 only and by not issuing a similar notification of exemption from payment of tax under section 18, the Government can be said to have backed out from its promise. In the result, these petitions fail. Rule issued in each of these petitions is discharged, with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 329 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s used in the proviso, does not mean, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, required by any order contemplated by that proviso. In the context in which the words in pursuance of have been used, they will have to be construed as by reason of . The order passed in appeal becomes the reason for fresh assessment. It is by reason of the order passed in appeal that the Sales Tax Officer will be required to pass a fresh order of assessment. If the said phrase is construed as by reason of , that will also achieve the object of the Act. In our opinion, in this case, it has become necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to make fresh assessment by reason of the order passed in appeal. Thus, his action must be regarded as in accordance with section 42(1) and not illegal or without jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioner. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 328 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... opinion that on account of the doubt regarding the correct interpretation of the provision, which had not been clarified even by the departmental authorities till the matter was settled by the Tribunal, the petitioner had adequate reason for not paying the tax at the rate at which the department has now held it to be liable. Accordingly, the matter regarding the imposition of penalty and interest deserves to be reconsidered by the Assessing Authority. In view of the above, I hold that the tax under section 8 of the Central Act has to be paid at a rate determined on a combined reading of sections 15 and 16 of the Haryana Act. The order of the Assessing Authority in that respect is upheld. However, with regard to the imposition of penalty and interest, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (1) TMI 327 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urposes are covered under the definition of packing material . The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, in its order found that the glassine paper and greaseproof paper are used ordinarily for packing purposes. In view of this, the glassine paper and greaseproof paper are included in packing material and should be taxed at concessional rate of 3 per cent. The Sales Tax Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the case. It has also not taken into consideration the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Office, Jaipur, in its true sense and reversed the same in arbitrary way. Consequently, I allow the revision, set aside the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal and confirm the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, and hold that the glassine paper and greaseproof paper are packing material and are liable to be taxed at concessional rate of 3 per cent. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 326 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aintained in the ordinary course of business and entries are verifiable, and no suppression of purchase or sale was detected. The question whether books of account reflect true and correct position has its foundation on facts, and the conclusion belongs to the realm of factual adjudication. 6.. We accordingly answer the second question referred to as follows (i) Non-maintenance of annual account of stock in terms of section 15(2) of the Act by itself cannot be a ground to conclude that books of accounts and/or turnovers returned do not reflect the true and correct position relating to value of goods bought and sold. (ii) On the facts of the case at hand, in view of the findings of fact recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The question whether books of accounts maintained are true and correct is essentially one of facts. The reference is accordingly disposed of. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 325 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... harge interest because, according to him, the assessee had withheld the amount of admitted tax. Notice issued to the assessee did not require the assessee to show cause as to why the withholding of tax, if any, attracted charge of interest. Accordingly, we answer the reference by holding that the view of the Tribunal was not correct. However, the Tribunal shall consider whether on the facts, charge of interest was warranted in the facts of the case while dealing with the case under section 24(5) of the Act. This becomes necessary because the Tribunal did not deal with the question whether interest was chargeable in the circumstances of the case, and disposed of the case by merely dilating the proposition that earlier charge under rule 10 of the Central Rules having been nullified, there was no scope for charging it by resorting to section 9(2) of the Central Act. The reference is accordingly disposed of. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (1) TMI 324 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cessary and it was after the decision of the aforesaid case when the matter came to be decided in accordance with the judgment referred to above by the committee that it realised the mistake in English version of rule 17B. Before that, all these years ever since the introduction of section 25A dealing with deferment of tax, they kept on entertaining the applications for deferment of tax from numerous persons and presumably even allowed the same. It cannot, thus, at this stage be permitted to take up stand as has been noticed above. Such a stand if at all permissible, can be only after making the necessary corrigendum, referred to above. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions being dealt by this order are allowed with costs. Orders, annexures P3 and P4, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to deferment of payment of sales tax for a period of five years in this writ petition and as per entitlement of the petitioners in other cases. Petitions allowed.
........
|
