|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 310 Records
-
1992 (2) TMI 366 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us, before the appropriate forum. 59. Before parting, we are of the view that since the appeal has been preferred by the appellant on March 4, 1991, against the judgment delivered on February 8, 1991, and the writ petitioner got back possession of the Cinema Hall in terms of the said judgment and no steps were taken on behalf of the present appellant Bharat Coking Coal Limited to prevent the same, and in the special facts of this case, the parties should maintain status quo in respect of possession of the Cinema Hall for a period of one month from date to enable the writ petitioner to move the appropriate forum pursuant to our aforesaid observations. 60. Appeal is, thus, disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. On the prayer of the learned Advocates, let plain copy of operative part of this judgment, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. P.K. Mukherjee, J. 61. I agree.
-
1992 (2) TMI 365 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the Tribunal while setting aside the two domestic enquiries, directed the Management to prove the charges against the workman afresh, before it. So, there is no finality in the matter and the matter is yet to be decided whereupon consequences, if any, will follow suit. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the finding of the lower Tribunal that the two domestic enquiries conducted by the Management were not proper or were defective, is incorrect and accordingly that finding is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to consider the validity of the findings of the two domestic enquiries afresh as to the misconduct and the quantum of punishment in the light of the principles laid down in this Judgment. The writ petition is allowed to this limited extent. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate fee ₹ 200/- 27. Before parting with the case, I must appreciate the valuable assistance readily rendered by Sri Bhikshapathi, learned Counsel as Amicus Curiae.
-
1992 (2) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity does not apply in the present case of a constitutional amendment which suffers from the defect of absence of ratification as required by the proviso to clause (2) of Article 368; that the remaining part of the Tenth Schedule minus para 7 is also unconstitutional for violation of a basic feature of the Constitution; and that the entire Tenth Schedule is, therefore, constitutionally invalid rendering the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 still born and an abortive attempt to amend the constitution. In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary for us to express our concluded opinion on the other grounds of challenge to the constitutional validity of the entire Tenth Schedule urged at the hearing on the basis of alleged violation of certain other basic features of the Constitution including the right of members based on Article 105 of the Constitution. These are our detailed reasons for the operative conclusions pronounced by us earlier on November 12, 1991.
-
1992 (2) TMI 363 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ounsel very elaborately and thoroughly." This is an added reasoning to uphold the validity of Section 58(A). Turning to the second argument about the absence of quid pro quo, we need only extract the following from the judgment of the High Court "Section 58(A) of the Bombay Prohibition Act creates a statutory duty of supervision and incidentally provides for recovering from a manufacturer or a businessman the cost of supervision which is primarily necessitated by the manufacturer or businessman having been permitted under a licence to carry on lawfully a business or industrial activity which would otherwise have been unlawful. We need not go into the details of this aspect because it has not been contended before us that if the levy under Section 58A is held to be a fee, there is no sufficient quid pro quo between the quantum of the impost and the services rendered to the manufacturer or businessman." In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with cost.
-
1992 (2) TMI 362 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Sales Tax) and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported as 1976 37 STC 207 (Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa). 7.. The facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the aforesaid Essex Farms case. The only difference is that the goods in which the dealer was dealing in Essex Farms case was meat while in the present case, the goods are vanaspati. The terms of the contract of sale between the dealer and the Ministry of Defence are identical. 8.. Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision dated 18th July, 1991 in Sales Tax Reference No. 38 of 1978, (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Essex Farms (P) Ltd.) we answer question No. (i) in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. In view of our answer to this question, question Nos. (ii) and (iii) have become academic and need not be answered. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Question No. 1 answered in the affirmative. Question Nos. 2 and 3 not answered.
-
1992 (2) TMI 361 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of promissory estoppel would apply in such cases and that the resolution dated September 15, 1982 cannot be applied to those industries which were set up on the basis of the promise contained in the resolutions dated December 22, 1977 and August 27, 1980 and had become entitled to the benefits available under those resolutions. Following the decision in that case, it will have to be held that notwithstanding that Government resolution dated September 15, 1982, the petitioner remains entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment as indicated in the eligibility certificate and the sales tax deferment certificate. 3.. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and it is declared that notwithstanding the resolution dated September 15, 1982, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment as indicated in the eligibility certificate and the sales tax deferment certificate. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the State Government and which had fulfilled other conditions of the scheme. In view of the facts of this case, it will have to be held that the said notification had no application to the petitioner and it was entitled to get all the benefits available under the scheme as stipulated in the eligibility certificate and the sales tax exemption certificate. The order passed by respondent No. 2 cancelling the exemption certificate will have to be regarded as illegal. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated December 9, 1983, passed by the second respondent cancelling the exemption certificate is set aside and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of sales tax exemption as stipulated in the eligibility certificate dated December 17, 1981, and the exemption certificate dated February 6, 1982. The respondents are directed to grant such benefits to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 359 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nuing to be oil. In refining the same, purification process is involved and nothing more. 4.. I think this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has got to be accepted and this view is reiterated in Collector of Central Excise v. Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. JT 1989 2 SC 8. Therefore, the clarification issued by the Commissioner at annexure B in so far as groundnut oil brought into local area for refining is taxable under entry 16B of the Schedule to the Act up to March 31, 1987 shall stand quashed. In the circumstance, it is open to the petitioner to file his objections to the proposition notice issued to him. If he has already filed objections, further objections may be filed as may be open to him in law and such objections shall be filed within one month from today. It is open to the respondents to complete the assessment as provided under law and in the light of the observations made above. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 358 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Court in the case of Rajdhani Waste Cotton Agency v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1991 83 STC 530 had an occasion to consider similar questions. It came to the conclusion that the registration certificate could be granted only after the dealer had incurred liability to pay the sales tax and it could not be granted from an earlier date. In other words there could be no retrospective grant of registration. It is not disputed that the dealer became liable to tax with effect from June 1, 1975. Applications for grant of registration were filed on July 7, 1975. Therefore, the earliest point of time with effect from which the registration could be granted was that date, i.e., July 7, 1975. Registration was, therefore, rightly granted from July 7, 1975 and could not be granted with effect from June 1, 1975. The aforesaid questions of law are, therefore, answered in favour of the department and against the dealer. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 357 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns of the Constitution and the Act, there is a deemed sale of only the materials involved in the retreading and there is no sale of the retreaded tyre as such. In this perspective, it cannot be stated that there is sale of the goods produced. There is no sale of the retreaded tyre. Unless there is a sale of the goods produced, the small-scale industrial unit will not be entitled to the exemption relied on. The finding of the Tribunal is that there is no sale of the goods produced, i.e., the retreaded tyre. On this basis, we have no doubt that the assessee has not fulfilled the basic requirement of S.R.O. No. 968/80. It is impossible to say that the plea of the assessee is for exemption of the tax payable under the Act on the turnover of the sale of the goods produced (retreaded tyre) and sold by the small-scale industrial unit. The common order of the Tribunal, dated February 25, 1991, does not merit interference in revision. The revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 356 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s v. State of Madras 1975 35 STC 24 (SC), the question was whether construction of bus bodies on chassis provided by customers would involve sale. It was held that supply of bodies on chassis constituted a sale and the assessees are liable to pay tax. In the decision reported in Builders Association of India v. Union of India 1989 73 STC 370 (SC), works contract was referred to. In that case the enlargement of definition of tax on sale came up for consideration. In this case we are not concerned about that. All these are decisions to show that the registration may be wrong in certain identified cases. If the registration is wrong, it is for the respondent to cancel or amend the same as provided for in section 7(4). So long as the registration is not cancelled, petitioners are entitled to C form. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for C form so long as the registration certificates are not cancelled. Original petitions are allowed as above. Petitions allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 355 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... which is a defaulter in submission of returns. This ground was clearly not mentioned in the show cause notice. Therefore, the applicants had no opportunity to meet this ground in the course of submitting its reply. That being so, whether or not the ground is extraneous, no reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant to make its submission and that makes the show cause notice invalid. Therefore, the impugned order dated August 1, 1987, was passed without affording the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. On this ground alone, the order dated August 1, 1987, is liable to be struck down. Therefore, we do not propose to enter into the other related questions which have been argued by the learned advocate for the applicant. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated August 1, 1987, demanding the security of Rs. 35,000 from the applicant is struck down. No order is made for costs. P.C. BANERJI (Technical Member).-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 354 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... although not shown separately in the bills or accounts. If that was not the stand of the assessee, it was not open to the Tribunal to make a presumptuous conclusion. Our answer to the question referred to therefore, is that the Tribunal was not correct to hold that filing of C forms amply proved that tax component has been included in the sale price even though not shown separately in the bills and the accounts, since there is no material to show that the same was assessee s stand. In a given case the assessee may be able to prove by placing materials to show that tax component was included in the sale price which is evident from issue of C forms, and payment of concessional rate of tax. When the matter goes back to the Tribunal for disposal under section 24(5) of the Act, the Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh keeping in view the position of law indicated by us. The reference is accordingly answered. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1992 (2) TMI 353 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... or modification of an existing industrial unit. The second unit of the applicant at Uttarpara for manufacture of hair-oil and Livasol is an expansion or addition of the first and existing industrial unit of the applicant at Calcutta bus stand. In the circumstances, the main application in RN-567 of 1989 is to be dismissed as the applicant is not entitled to get eligibility certificate in view of the bar under clause (iv) below the explanation in Notification No. 1177-F.T. dated March 31, 1983. ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the application for review is allowed. The judgment delivered by this Tribunal in Case No. RN-567 of 1989 , is recalled and set aside. The main application in RN-567 of 1989 is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. On the verbal prayer of the learned advocate for the respondent, let the operation of this judgment be stayed for six weeks from this date. Review application allowed. Reported in 1991 83 STC 515 (WBTT)
-
1992 (2) TMI 352 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 82, relying upon the promise made by the Government, it is not possible to grant any other relief except the declaration that if it is shown by the petitioner that further investment up to December 20, 1982, was made by it pursuant to the assurance given by the Government, then the Industries Commissioner and the sales tax authorities are bound to See Tata Metals and Strips Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 1992 87 STC 447. consider that investment also for the purpose of determining the extent of benefit available to the petitioner under the scheme. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to suitably amend the eligibility certificate granted by it and respondent No. 3 is directed to suitably amend the deferment certificate and the respondents are directed to extend the benefits available to the petitioner under the scheme and in terms of the amended certificate. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 351 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... moved from one State to the other. There is a verbal contract which has been entered into between the dealer and the departments outside Delhi. It is as a result thereof that auto parts were fixed in the vehicles and those vehicles went back to their respective States and the price was received only after the auto parts which were supplied have been approved by the purchasers. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that there was a movement of goods from Delhi to outside the State and that this movement had been occasioned by the sale which was effected by the dealer. The movement of goods was incidental to the sale and was also an implied term of the sale. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the sales in question were interState sales. For the aforesaid reasons the question of law is answered in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 350 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es Tax) Act, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. According to that subsection transfer in property, inter alia, takes place when there is transfer of goods on hire-purchase. As Delhi was a Union Territory, therefore, the Parliament could enact such a law and regard the transaction as sale even though in general law under the Sale of Goods Act it may not be a sale. The hire-purchase agreement was deemed to amount to a sale under section 2(g) and, therefore, in 1980 45 STC 368 (Goodwill India Ltd. v. State) it was held that the sale took place when such an agreement was entered into. This being so it is obvious that the dealer did sell, within the meaning of the expression in section 2(g), all the vehicles which it had purchased and, therefore, there was no misutilisation of the registration certificate. The question of law, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 349 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the order of assessment for the year 1966-67 having been quashed on the ground that it was time barred, the same had the effect of eliminating that determination of liability as well . The further finding that till, therefore, fresh liability in the present year 1967-68 was determined, no assessment could take place is without any legal basis. The determination of liability, as we have already held, is by virtue of the Act itself and not by virtue of any order passed by the assessing authority. The liability is determined when the taxable quantum is exceeded. It is not determined when any order is passed. The taxable quantum in the present case was exceeded with effect from September 1, 1966 and the question of any fresh liability being determined for the year 1967-68 could not in law arise. For the aforesaid reasons, the question of law is answered in the negative and against the dealer. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 348 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt expanded the concept of sale or purchase for the purpose of levy of tax thereon. Apart from merely indicating this argument, the learned counsel has not elaborated as to how the concept of sale either in its traditional sense or in its enlarged sense has been violated in the instant case by defining as to what is first sale and what is last sale. There cannot be an iota of doubt that what is taxed under the Sixth Schedule read with the explanation is only sale of liquor and nothing else. Lastly it was faintly urged by the learned counsel that there is no guidance in the Act to identify what is liquor and what is beer. The expression all liquors occurring in the Sixth Schedule obviously includes beer . Only toddy and arrack have been specifically excluded from the Sixth Schedule. We do not see any difficulty of identification whatsoever. In the result, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 347 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... also on an interpretation of the said proviso, we are of the opinion that the authorities below fell into an error by not extending the relief under the said proviso to the applicants. In our view, the applicants are entitled to whatever relief is available under the said proviso. In the result, the main application succeeds in part. It is allowed to the extent that the relief available under the proviso to section 6B(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, is available to the applicants. Accordingly, respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Park Street Charge, is directed to grant such relief to the applicants under the said proviso by assessing afresh the quantum of turnover tax payable by the applicants during the period from April 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979. To that extent, the impugned order of assessment, the appellate order and the revisional order passed by the learned Tribunal below are modified. No order is made for costs. Application partly allowed.
........
|
