|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 240 Records
-
1992 (11) TMI 275 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the last date, viz., 17.7.92 upto which the offer made therein was to remain open for acceptance. In this manner, the respondent’s higher tender was superseded only by a significantly higher bid made during the negotiations with all tenderers giving them equal opportunity to compete by revising their bids. The fact that it was a significantly higher bid obtained by adopting this course is sufficient in the facts of the present case to demonstrate that the action of the appellant satisfied the requirement of nonarbitrariness, and it was taken for the cogent reason of inadequacy of the price offered in the highest tender, which reason was evident to all tenderers invited to participate in the negotiations and to revise their bids. The High Court was in error in taking the contrary view. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, resulting in dismissal of the respondent’s writ petition, No costs, G.N. Appeal allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6 of the Act were available at the time of publication of such notifications. In the facts and circumstances of the case before us the appellants were also sitting on the fence and did not take any steps of challenging the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act till 1973 though the grounds now sought to be urged were available to the appellants as soon as such notifications were issued. Thus viewing the matter from any angle we are clearly of the view that the writ petition was also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the appellants apart from other grounds already dealt by us. In the face of the aforesaid view taken by us, it is not necessary at all to go on other questions raised in the case. We decline to express any opinion on any questions of law raised in the appeal. In the result we dismiss this appeal with costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself all interim orders stand vacated automatically. Appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which would consider them any may accept or modify the list as per the record and would communicate to the Central Govt. and State Govts. Thereafter the Central Govt. would make necessary appointments on the recommendation by the State Govts. as per law. The seniority list already approved by the Central Govt. as directed by this Court in the first instance subject to the above modification and for the rest of the years would stand upheld and the Civil Appeals to that extent are allowed and O.As. stand dismissed. For others the respective years of allotment shall accordingly be assigned. The appeals are accordingly allowed with above directions. The Writ Petition is against interim directions of this Court. Pending appeal. It is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. The LA. Nos. 1 to 10/91 and C.P. No. 191 of 1991 are dismissed. The directions given by the respective tribunals stand modified. In the circumstances parties would bear their respective costs throughout.
-
1992 (11) TMI 272 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g in the bills any amount on account of cess any further. It is also clarified that after the date of this judgment the authorities concerned will not enforce the provisions of the said three Acts in any manner whatsoever. 56. There will be no order as to costs. 57. Mr. Kar appearing for the respondents asks for stay of the operation of the judgment and order for four weeks. This prayer is allowed. There will be, therefore, a stay for four weeks from the date. However, so long as the stay will continue any levy that may be collected shall be kept in a separate account by Coal India Limited or State of West Bengal as the case may be, subject to any further order that may be obtained by the respondents. 58. Let xerox copy of the judgment be made over to the Advocates on Record of the parties on usual undertaking. 59. All parties to act on a signed xerox copy of the operative portion of the judgment on usual undertaking. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. 60. I agree. 61. Order accordingly.
-
1992 (11) TMI 271 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... any privilege extending beyond that protected by the Bill of Rights. In the absence of a claim to a defined privilege as to the validity of which your Lordships could make a determination, it would not in my view be right to withhold from the taxpayers a decision to which, in law, they are entitled. I would therefore allow the appeal. I trust when the House of Commons comes to consider the decision in this case, it will be appreciated that there is no desire to impeach its privileges in any way. Your Lordships are motivated by a desire to carry out the intentions of Parliament in enacting legislation and have no intention or desire to question the processes by which such legislation was enacted or of criticising anything said by anyone in Parliament in the course of enacting it. The purpose is to give effect to, not thwart, the intentions of Parliament. Appeal allowed with costs. Solicitors Kenwright and Cox for Jagger Son and Tilley, Birmingham; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.
-
1992 (11) TMI 270 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... applicant was not entitled to get exemption. 7.. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is erroneous. There was no question of validity of contract or performance of the contract. The simple question was whether the applicant was entitled to exemption on the sale of locally purchased electric motors. There is no denial of the fact that in case the electric motors are locally purchased and thereafter sold within the State of U.P. then the applicant is entitled to exemption. The applicant admittedly supplied electric motors. There is no justification for not granting the exemption to the applicant on the supply of such electric motors. 8.. In the result, the revision is allowed so far as the U.P. sales tax is concerned and the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the applicant is entitled to the exemption of tax on the sale of the electric motors. The amount of tax shall be determined accordingly. 9.. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 269 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Pleader has not disputed that the subject-matter of the second appeal was the entire assessment order and reassessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in first appeals. When that is so, new ground which was sought to be raised by the opponent-assessee has been rightly allowed to be raised by the Tribunal and that does not in any way change the subject-matter of the appeals pending before the Tribunal. Even otherwise in view of the reasoning given by the Tribunal the new ground sought to be raised by the opponent affected the very jurisdiction of the sales tax authority in the matter of levying tax. We broadly agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal for permitting the opponent-dealer to raise the new ground. 13.. In view of the above discussion we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (11) TMI 268 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 89 72 STC 343 (All.) 1988 UPTC 1246. They are all distinguishable on facts. The applicant shall be given an opportunity to confront with the original document, exhibit 13 and to cross-examine Ramesh Chand and such other parties in support of his contention that those entries do not relate to the transaction of the applicant. When in a case, an order of remand has been passed exercising judicial discretion, such order should not be normally interfered with in revision. In Sri Malik Chand Fakir Chand v. Sales Tax Officer 1975 35 STC 228 (All.), it was held that where the appellate authority has rightly exercised its discretion in remanding the case to the assessing authority, such order of remand should not be interfered with. In the present case it cannot be held that the Tribunal acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction by remanding the case. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 267 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the sale of electric motors when not used in the distribution, generation and transmission of electric energy. This apart, memo dated January 4, 1974, at the most extended a concession to the dealers which was restricted to the sales made up to February 21, 1973, only but the court has to interpret the entry 17 to Schedule A as it exists on the statute and the concession given by the department on this point would not help otherwise in the interpretation of this entry. Therefore, we find no substance in this submission of the counsel appearing for the dealer either. No other point was raised. For the reasons stated above, the question referred to this Court for opinion is answered as under Electric motors do not fall within the ambit of excepted goods mentioned in entry 17 of Schedule A to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and therefore liable to sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent and not 6 per cent as claimed by the dealer. No costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (11) TMI 266 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of the purchase of Rs. 1,06,263.20 and on the face of the admission of the assessee with regard to his tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 25,584.80, the assessee could not, in law, be declared non-taxable under the Act. The court has carefully scrutinised the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and finds that the Tribunal had not considered the impact of the absence of form III-C(2) in respect of the purchase amounting to Rs. 1,06,263.20 and of his admission of his tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 25,584.80. This is fatal and the impugned judgment, therefore, must perish. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated January 11, 1989 is set aside. Let a copy of this decision be transmitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the quantum of tax payable by the assessee-opposite party under the Act in conformity with the above answer to the question of law raised on behalf of the Revenue. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 265 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s will be affected. We have heard both sides on the question as to whether a pawnbroker becomes a dealer under the Act and on hearing both sides we have held that a pawnbroker becomes a dealer under the Act. The circular issued by the Commissioner is also to the same effect. Therefore, in the instant case it becomes unnecessary for us to go into the question as to whether section 3A of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution. This contention can be considered in an appropriate case and not in a case like this wherein we have considered the question as to whether a pawnbroker is a dealer. Hence, we are of the view that points 2 and 3 need not be considered in these appeals. The circular dated October 30, 1991, being in conformity with the decision we have rendered is valid in law. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeals fail and the same are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ appeals dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 264 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rial before us to decide these essentially factual questions. As already noticed, the petitioner has to make out his case on these aspects for the purpose of sustaining its claim for exclusion of lorry freight charges. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider afresh whether the amount representing differential freight charges on account of lorry transport is exigible to tax, keeping in view the approach indicated above and the observations made by us. It is open to the petitioner to adduce additional evidence by filing a petition before the Tribunal for the purpose of substantiating its case and the Tribunal will consider the same on its own merits. Having regard to the fact that the assessments date back to nearly ten years, we consider it just and proper to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals expeditiously. The T.R.Cs. are allowed accordingly. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 263 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated by an appropriate order. 27.. The rate of interest to be awarded is within the exclusive discretionary jurisdiction of the court. Precedents referred to above show that rates vary from 10 per cent to 15 per cent as between private parties it was 20 per cent as fixed by the Supreme Court in Rajalakshmi Narayanan s case . In the Karnataka Electricity Board s appeal (W.A. No. 1782 of 1985 decided on July 10, 1990-Karnataka High Court), this Court allowed the interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. It is not possible to evolve a principle of universal application on this question. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum computable from the respective dates on which Rs. 45 lakhs was paid by the petitioner, till the date of the refund of the said sum to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 262 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es and drinks and (ii) rendering of services, the hotelier has to establish the nature of the transactions and the dominant object of the transactions. Only in case the dominant object was rendering of the services, question of applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India s case 1989 73 STC 370 would arise. Employing several suppliers, cleaners and helpers by itself would not prove the dominant object was rendering of services. Even for the preparation and sale of eatables, these employees are necessary. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for us to examine the applicability of the ratio in Builders Association of India s case 1989 73 STC 370 (SC) to interpret sub-clause (f) of article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If there is any other provision of law enabling the petitioner to seek the adjustment of tax paid, it is open to him to resort to the same. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd whether annexure IV is such, we are not going to adjudicate the same in this petition. But as we have observed above, we dispose of this petition only pertaining to the impugned notice, annexure VI to the petition. It is very significant in this case that annexure IV is dated March 7, 1990, while the impugned show cause notice is dated June 27, 1990, which is much later than the earlier notice. In view of this we only direct the respondent-authority not to further proceed with the enquiry pertaining to the petitioner in a proceeding in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice whether exemption was rightly or wrongly granted by the assessing authority but to keep these proceedings in abeyance until further final disposal of the proceedings, if any undertaken under section 22 of the said Act and then pass final order in the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is disposed of finally. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (11) TMI 260 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the composition may be accepted in lieu of the amount of tax payable by the hotelier. But if the hotelier is also engaged in any other kind of business, naturally the tax payable by him would include the tax payable in respect of the other business also. Further, it has to be noticed that when an individual carries on several businesses, the Act contemplates a single registration as a dealer. The Act does not provide for separate registration in respect of each variety of business. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to reject the contention of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to state that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order by way of an appeal in case any other ground is available to him. In case, the appeal has not been filed so far, the petitioner is granted 4 weeks time from today to file an appeal and the appellate authority shall condone the delay in filing such an appeal. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 259 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts own cannot bear this brand name or trade mark. This will certainly be a relevant factor to be considered along with other factors referred to in Raj Sheel s case 1989 74 STC 379 (SC) there may, still be other factors. None has considered the instant case in the light of Raj Sheel decision 1989 74 STC 379 (SC). The Tribunal and statutory authorities thought it unnecessary to examine the facts in view of entry 38. We do not consider it legal to levy the tax under entry 38 on the bottle and the liquor solely because, liquor was contained in the bottle at the time of the sale of the liquor. All the relevant factors require to be examined in this regard. 18.. In the result, these petitions are partly allowed. The assessment orders in question are set aside with a direction to make fresh orders in the light of this judgment, regarding chemical fertilizer mixtures and the liquor including bottled liquor . Petitions allowed to the above extent. No costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 258 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s purchased by the opponentassessee is sold to said Shri Gafarbhai Yunusbhai it is in the working order. Merely because some time has elapsed between the date of purchases and the date of resale it cannot be said that the said chassis is not in the same form. No time-limit is prescribed under the Act that goods should be resold within a particular time. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in the contention raised by Mr. K.M. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader and we fully agree with the findings given by the Tribunal that the chassis was sold by the opponent-assessee to said Shri Gafarbhai Yunusbhai in the same form in which it was purchased and therefore it amounts to resale of the vehicle for the purpose of section 7(ii) of the Act. 10.. In result we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (11) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of various provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Amending Act No. 27 of 1985 and the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 challenged
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As in prescribing different rates of tax for particular types of works contract in the Sixth Schedule, the State Legislature has contravened the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution. We may, in this context, mention that the High Court while upholding the validity of the rates fixed in the Sixth Schedule has held that while under the Second Schedule tax on pipes, tubes and fittings of iron, cement and asbestos not falling in the Fourth Schedule is to be levied at 8 per cent, the tax on the corresponding item under item No. 20 of the Sixth Schedule is levied at the rate of 10 per cent. The High Court has held the fixation of rate of tax in respect of item 20 in the Sixth Schedule as being discriminatory and has struck it down. The said part of the judgment of the High Court has not been challenged by the State and we do not wish to say anything on the same.
During the course of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to challenge the validity of section 19A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which provides for deduction of tax at source. We find that the said provision was not challenged by the appellant in the writ petition before the High Court and was also not challenged in the additional grounds which were submitted by the appellant in the High Court after the decision of this Court in Builders Association case [1989 (3) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. It has also not been challenged by the appellant in the special leave petition filed before this Court. In these circumstances, we have not permitted the appellant to raise this question.
-
1992 (11) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the absence of an amendment in the Central Sales Tax Act specifically applying its provisions to a transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract, the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 contained in Chapter II can be held applicable to such a transfer?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court has upheld the validity of sub-section (3) of section 5 by taking into account the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 29 but, while considering the said provisions the High Court has failed to notice that under clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of rule 29, transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract, on which no tax is leviable under section 5, are not required to be deducted from the turnover. The High Court also failed to attach importance to the use of the word "turnover" (instead of word "taxable turnover') in sub-section (3) of section 5 as a result of which the amplitude of the incidence of tax has been widened so as to include transactions which are outside the sphere of taxation available to the State Legislature under entry 54 of the State List. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the decision of the High Court in this regard.
Since the invalidity of section 5(3) goes to the root of the imposition of tax and in the absence of the said provision the tax cannot be levied, the appellants in the appeals are entitled to succeed.
........
|
