|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 310 Records
-
1992 (2) TMI 346 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Commissioner s decision according approval will not become effective and any further retention of the books or documents seized would become invalid and unlawful. On the point of recording of reasons and communication thereof to the assessee, we are taking the view which is consistent with the view which has been expressed by the Supreme Court in these two cases. They do not support the contention raised by the learned advocate for the assessee that the assessee is required to be heard before passing an order for stay of assessment proceedings. As we are not inclined to agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is not necessary for us to consider the alternative contention of the learned Advocate-General that no relief should be granted to the petitioner as that would result in unjust enrichment. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Ad interim relief stands vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 345 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he course of import. On an application being made the aforesaid two questions have been referred to this Court. The facts in this case are more or less similar to the facts in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. General Trading and Sales Corporation 1992 84 STC 193 (Delhi). In that case also import on behalf of the actual user licensee had been on the basis of letter of authority which had been issued to the dealer. The terms of the import licence and the letter of authority were more or less identical. On a consideration of the law this Court came to the conclusion that such sales were in the course of import. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct and calls for no interference. The two questions of law referred to this Court are, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. There will be no order of the costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 344 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... its having carried out works contracts in the different circles and hence seeking the benefit of filing returns in one circle. Since the Sales Tax Officers including that of the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle, derive authority to assess only by conferment of such power on them by the Commissioner, the powers so vested in them would stand superseded to the extent it is divested by the subsequent notification in annexure 1 and hence the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar I Circle, would have no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner in respect of the transactions which have already been subjected to assessment at the Balasore Circle or the transactions which are assessable by virtue of the order in annexure 1 in the Balasore Circle. The notice in annexure 2 to that extent was hence without authority and is quashed. 3. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 343 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... There was no justification made out in G.O. Ms. No. 376 for giving retrospective operation thereto. The State Government was fully justified in amending the said Government Order and giving it only prospective operation. It was completely within its right in doing so. 4.. However, the petitioners learned counsel submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 376 giving retrospective operation was already acted upon by the petitioners but when asked in what manner it was acted upon, he submitted that in accordance therewith, the petitioners had made applications for refund. There is no dispute that no refund was granted. We see no substance in the contention relating to acting upon. 5.. It was also submitted that promissory estoppel comes into play. We are unable to agree. The same has no relevance to the facts of the instant case. 6.. We see no merit in this petition. It thus fails and is dismissed. 7.. Oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is rejected. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 342 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sidered in that case consisted of cotton collar treated with special kind of adhesive and bonded on an oblong buckram cloth the spread out collar had a lengthwise slit running in the middle and there were also eyelets at either end of the collar. This Court held that merely because it was stiffened, etc., it did not cease to be a cotton fabric and that it was not a different product. This decision negates the contention of the learned Government Pleader. This decision clearly supports our view that tarpaulin, which is a hemmed piece of cotton canvas with eyelets, is cotton fabric under the said item No. 5. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal correctly held that tarpaulin fell within the meaning of the expression cotton fabrics under item No. 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. We do not find any error of law in the judgment of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 341 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the year from April 1, 1983 to July 7, 1983 and the Revenue not having challenged that before us, it shall naturally be entitled to the benefit of the same rate for the subsequent period of the assessment year also. That shall be notwithstanding the affirmation of the assessment order dated May 25, 1985. In this view, Tax Revision Case Nos. 247 of 1990 and 262 of 1990 are dismissed. T.R.C. No. 105 of 1988 is allowed restoring the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) dated February 27, 1985. T.R.C. No. 316 of 1990 is also allowed directing that the revisional authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) shall consider the question of rate of tax at which the bottle deposits are taxable-whether the rate applicable to glassware-item 123 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act-may not apply. No order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each case. T.R.C. Nos. 247 and 262 of 1990 dismissed. T.R.C. Nos. 105 of 1988 and 316 of 1990 allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 340 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... considered opinion, the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The indication of the basis, even if it is accepted that the same was done, in the impugned order cannot be held sufficient compliance of the requirement to give an effective opportunity. 5. We, therefore, vacate the order passed by the Commissioner vide annexure 1. If so deemed necessary, he may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner indicating the reasons/grounds which according to him necessitate any order under section 23(4)(a) of the Act read with rule 80 of the Rules. We have not expressed any opinion about merits of the case as urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the department. 6.. The writ application and Miscellaneous Case No. 750 of 1992 are disposed of. Requisites for communication of our order to opposite parties shall be filed by Monday (February 17, 1992). S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 339 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all kinds of electrical goods, instruments, apparatus and appliances by restricting the same to items specified in sub-items (i) to (v). Therefore, those articles which are mentioned in these sub-entries alone will fall within entry 38 and no other article can be brought within its fold. As battery plates and battery covers are not mentioned in sub-items (i) to (v) of entry 38 they are not taxable under entry 38 of the First Schedule to the Act. For all the above reasons, we set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated August 24, 1984 in CCT s Ref. LIII(1)/2319/84-1 and CCT s Ref. LIII(1)/2319/84-2 and restore the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Krishna Division at Vijayawada dated August 27, 1980 treating the said items as unclassified items liable to be taxed as such. The special appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 338 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shall lay its hands. It is the purchasing dealer who is getting exemption on fulfilment of certain conditions. Therefore, if goods purchased on the basis of the declaration are put to a different use, the benefit of exemption is to be denied to it. The selling dealer cannot be faulted if there is any diversion or change of user. In this connection, the fifth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act is relevant, and has application. 7.. Therefore, in our view the authorities were not correct in taxing the petitioner for any alleged change in user of the goods purchased by issue of form I-A by the purchasing dealer. It is open to the department to appropriately levy tax on opposite party No. 7 if it is established that the goods purchased by it on the strength of form I-A was put to a different use or that there has been any contravention of the declaration. The writ applications are accordingly disposed of. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 337 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cate not to misutilise the goods after purchase. The goods would be regarded as being misutilised if they have been purchased for one purpose but they are used for another. Goods which are meant for resale have to be sold. Goods which are purchased as raw material and after manufacture are to be resold have to be resold. What is important is the element of sale of the goods as purchased or of the finished goods in which raw material is used. As there could, in law, be no sale by the club in favour of its members, it could not, in law, make any purchases on the strength of the registration certificate. The registration certificate was, in a sense, misutilised for making purchases. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct. The question of law is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents. The respondents will also be entitled to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 336 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act can be exercised only within a period of four years from the expiry of year of assessment. In this case the year of assessment is 1972-73. The four-year period expires on March 31, 1977. The Deputy Commissioner passed the order under revision on October 10, 1977. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is beyond limitation. It appears, an alternative contention was also raised on the ground that mere mentioning of section 14 would not bring the order within section 14 as the power was in fact exercised under section 20(2) of the Act. This contention was also examined by the Tribunal. It was held that there was no fresh material before the revisional authority to bring the case within sub-section (2) of section 20. Nothing is pointed out to us to show that this finding of the Tribunal is incorrect. For the above reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 335 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g. Since we are, in effect, reversing the judgment in Nanjappa s case 1968 22 STC 277 (Mys), we must add that until the process of compounding is completed by payment of the agreed compounding fee, the sales tax authorities would be entitled to lodge a prosecution, but not to recover the composition fee by coercive process. For the purpose of this judgment, we have proceeded upon the basis that an order of compounding is required to be made under section 31. Even so, no appeal can lie thereagainst under section 20 because the appellant cannot object thereto. The order is, in fact, in his favour, made to save him the disgrace and ignominy of a prosecution . In the result, we hold that a person in respect of whom an order of compounding is made is not entitled to challenge the order under any circumstances by invoking the appellate provisions of section 20 of the Act. The revision petitions shall now be placed before the Division Bench dealing therewith for appropriate orders.
-
1992 (2) TMI 334 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mes did not exist. However, Sri Srinivasa Reddi contends that the dealers had registered their names with the department and they shall be deemed to be genuine dealers. We are unable to accept the same. If the petitioner is claiming exemption it is for him to show that he had purchased pulses from dealers who are in existence. Registration of certain names as dealers with the department would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to the exemption if the said dealers are found to be fictitious and nonexisting. It is lastly contended by Sri Srinivasa Reddi that the Tribunal erred in not granting reduced rate in respect of wheat which is a declared goods. This contention was not raised before the Tribunal as can be seen from the order of the Tribunal. We are, therefore, not inclined to permit the contention to be raised for the first time in this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 333 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The assessment year herein is one earlier to introduction of section 6-C. Accordingly, the T.R.C., is allowed, the order of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the turnover relating to gunnies is concerned, is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to re-examine the said aspect in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, and pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the Commissioner dated January 26, 1985 in his proceedings CCT s Ref. L. III(1)/1916/84 will have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, with a direction that he should consider the matter afresh taking into consideration all the correspondence and other material on record after fresh enquiry if necessary and after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee, the appellant herein, in accordance with law. The special appeal is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 332 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pay tax under the Act. In our view, this contention is also not tenable as, in the abovesaid case Calcutta Swimming Club v. Commercial Tax Officer 1991 83 STC 197 (WBTT) , the Tribunal was dealing with the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, where there is no specific provision, deeming the supply of goods to members of unincorporated clubs to be sales . As mentioned already, the amended Act, in this State, has got specific provisions deeming the supply of goods to members by the clubs as sales . Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of the cases on hand. None of the petitioners have questioned any of the provisions of the Act. In view of what is stated above, we are of the view that the petitionerclubs come within the meaning of dealer under the Act. The petitioners are, therefore, liable to pay tax on the turnover . All the writ petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 in each. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 331 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the goods intended to be purchased are of the class covered by the certificate of registration, whereas the gist of offence under section 10(d) is that after purchasing goods for any of the purposes enumerated in section 8(3)(b), the purchaser fails to make use of the goods for the declared purpose. The offences are separate and distinct. The term reasonable means rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate. The onus which lay on the Revenue to prove the culpability, vis-a-vis, mens rea has been discharged by elaborate analysis of the factual aspects. The conclusions cannot be characterised as perverse. We, therefore, decline to interdict them. Therefore, while directing deletion of penalty so far as mercury is concerned, we maintain the same in respect of rest of the items. 6.. In the ultimate conclusion, penalty shall be restricted to a sum of Rs. 7,474. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. No costs. S.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree.
-
1992 (2) TMI 330 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not taxable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, at least as far as the assessment year 1971-72 is concerned, there can be no question of any sales tax being payable by the dealer. The dealer, therefore, must be regarded as having wrongly filed its return of sales. Having acted to its prejudice by filing the returns, the dealer cannot be further penalised by imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000. If in law no tax was payable, then the question of the dealer being subjected to any penalty cannot arise. It is not in dispute that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to by the Tribunal in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1978 42 STC 386, is applicable to the present case. This being so, no tax was payable and consequently no penalty could be realised. The aforesaid question of law is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. The dealer will be entitled to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1992 (2) TMI 329 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... io of the said decision, question No. 1, referred in the present case, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the dealer. As regards question No. 2 is concerned, the facts of this case are similar to the facts in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gramophone Co. of India, S.T.C. No. 47 of 1978, decided on 23rd August, 1991 . It was held in that case that against orders placed by Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, two sale transactions would take place, one between the foreign seller and the Indian dealer and the second sale is by the dealer in favour of the ultimate consignee. It was accordingly concluded that the sales cannot be regarded as being in the course of import. Following the said decision, question No. 2 referred to this Court is answered in the negative and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs. Question No. 1 answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2 answered in the negative. Reported in 1992 84 STC 311 (Delhi)
-
1992 (2) TMI 328 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... were treated as local sales and on that basis, the petitioner s vendor was assessed and tax was collected from them. Their assessment has become final. It was, therefore, not open to the department to take a different view as regards those sales at a subsequent stage while assessing the petitioner. On this ground this petition will have to be allowed so far as the order of assessment for samvat year 2036 is concerned. As we are allowing this petition, so far as assessment for samvat year 2036 is concerned, it is not necessary to decide the other question indicated above. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and it is declared that sales in respect of the goods purchased by the petitioner from respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and which were the subject-matter of dispute shall be treated as local sales and not inter-State sales and to that extent, the assessment order will stand modified. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1992 (2) TMI 327 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ex with water is also recommended for use in case of rainfed wheat. Even with regard to barley, it is recommended that barley seed should be treated with Aldrex 30 EC before sowing. Even for potato (spring crop), as per the publication of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, in Package of Practices for Crops of Punjab Rabi 1984-85 , it is stated that cutworms cause damage to the crop and the recommendation for avoiding such damage is to use Aldrex 30 EC before sowing and also while watering. It may here be stated that Aldrex is nothing more than the trade name of the medicine known as Aldrin 30 EC.. From the aforesaid, it is quite clear that the chemical Aldrex 30 EC is the pesticide used for plant protection and, therefore, the same is covered by entry 27 of the Third Schedule. For the foregoing reasons, the question of law abovementioned is answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
........
|
