|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 200 Records
-
1992 (4) TMI 243 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ree. All such pleas as to the rights which the guarantor had, had to be taken during trial and not after the decree while execution is being levied. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court dated 23rd May, 1990 and of the learned Additional District Judge dated 5th May, 1989 are set aside and it is held that the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the guarantor (judgment debtor No. 4) for the execution of the aforesaid decree.) It appears that in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 19th February, 1990 respondent No. 4 has furnished a bank guarantee in favour of the appellant-bank to the extent of ₹ 70,000. In view of the result of the appeal, the decree-holder bank will be entitled to proceed against judgment-debtor No. 4 to the extent of the decretal amount recoverable from the bank guarantee furnished by him and also to proceed in execution in accordance with law for the balance amount, if any. Appeal Allowed
-
1992 (4) TMI 242 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... holding and giving effect to all the provisions as far as it may be possible, and for avoiding the interpretation which may render any of them ineffective or otiose. In the present case Rule 29 dealing with payment of increment is in general terms while the Schedule in the 1969 Rules makes a special provision governing the untrained teachers, attracting the maxim ''generalibus special derogant', i.e., if a special provision is made on a certain subject, that subject is excluded from the general provision. The Schedule in the 1969 Rules, therefore, must be held to prevail over the general provisions of 1951 Rules. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondent and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the writ petition of the respondent filed in the High Court is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h a circular would be binding on the Tribunal or the High Court and at best, it could be treated as containing merely administrative directions, not in any manner affecting the judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act on the facts and the circumstances of a particular case. On a due consideration of the several decisions referred to by counsel on both sides, we are of the opinion that the reliance placed by the assessee on the circular cannot preempt a judicial interpretation of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act with reference to its constituent requisites and, in any event, such circulars, being purely administrative in nature, cannot bind either the Tribunal or this court in the matter of interpretation of the provisions of section 5(1)(iv) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the common question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs in these references. Counsel's fee ₹ 1,000. (one set).
-
1992 (4) TMI 239 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uitable' in Bolani Ores case by interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 57, List-II of the Constitution. Thus on that basis it was idle to contend on behalf of the appellants that Dumpers and Rockers were neither adaptable nor suitable for use on public roads. Thus on the fact situation, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in concluding that Dumpers and Rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicle perse, as held in Bolani Ores case, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads; the network of which, the State spreads, maintains it and keeps available for use of motor vehicles and hence entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax. (Exemptions claimable apart). The appellants, therefore, in our view, have no case for grant of any relief in these appeals. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to do so. The High Court further found that since no scrutiny or examination of balance-sheets was required to be done, no expenditure need be incurred and as such no fee for the purpose could be levied. We do not agree with the High Court reasoning. The Registrar is justified rather duty-bound to act in furtherance of the objects of the Act and the Rules. Even otherwise when the Rules provide for filling of the balance sheets by the Chartered Accountants, it is necessary in the context of the rules and the Act to provide machinery to examine and verify the contents of the balance-sheets. No fault can be found with the reasons given by the State for Appendix II to the Rules. We, therefore, allow the civil appeals and set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 20,1985 . The writ Petitions filed by the respondents-Petitioners are dismissed with costs. We quantify the costs as ₹ 20,000 to be paid jointly by all the respondents-petitioners in these cases.
-
1992 (4) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellant does not dispute before us that the Children Book Trust qualifies in every respect for exemption. He only objected to that part of the finding wherein the High Court had held as follows " The next contention of Mr. Arun Kumar was that the respondent was not supported mainly by voluntary contributions and was as such not entitled to the exemption. This contention of the appellant is answered by the provision to the said sub-section which clearly provides that the society may be supported ‘wholly or in part by voluntary contributions’. Because of the use of the words ‘in part’ in the proviso the society would be entitled to claim exemption, provided other conditions are satisfied, if it is able to show that it has received even a small amount of voluntary contribution." But this finding cannot be correct in view of our foregoing discussion. In the result, we dismiss both the appeals. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in mind by the assessing authority. At the risk of repetition we reiterate that the facts of each case have to be carefully analysed before coming to the conclusion whether a particular return is incorrect or incomplete and whether the assessee returned an incomplete or incorrect return, more with a view to postpone the tax legitimately due to the Government, or under a bona fide belief that his return was in accordance with law. From the facts extracted above, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the assessee bona fide believed that it was claiming exemption in accordance with law and therefore did not include the turnover of sales of Reported in 1994 94 STC 157 (Mad.) App. . cattle feed. The Tribunal was therefore right in setting aside the penalty which is in accordance with the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in T.C. No. (R) 1008 of 1984 order dated October 9, 1991 . In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 235 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the grinder, it could not be identified as an electrical appliance under entry 41-B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and that therefore the grinders could not be taxed again. On a revision petition filed by the Revenue Held, dismissing the petition, that there was no reason to differ from the finding of the Tribunal. The above ruling clearly applies to the facts of this case. 3.. The second point is on the question of levying penalty for belated filing of return under section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Here also, the question is covered by the decision reported in 1982 51 STC 357 (All.) (Brooke Bond India Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax). Not only that, the Joint Commissioner, without any discussion, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point. 4.. In view of the reported decisions mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 234 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 15 of the Act and since the assessee has failed to take recourse of the remedy provided under the Act, it would not authorise him to challenge the order of penalty again on the same facts. 5.. I may also mention that limitation has been provided now for levy of penalty and therefore, the Legislature has contemplated that the penalty could be levied only within such period as has been specified in section 16B. A question may arise on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions of the Act with regard to the right of the assessee to challenge the penalty proceedings under section 16 again in the order passed under section 10, as to whether the penalty could be levied in the proceedings under section 7B. Since this question has not been raised before the Tribunal nor any question has been framed on that point, no decision is given in this case on that point. In the result, the revisions are partly allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 233 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r be disposed of within a reasonable time frame. The Assistant Commissioner is, therefore, directed to dispose of the question of issue of eligibility certificate for the period from June 3, 1986 to December 31, 1986, within a period of three months after an application is made in this regard. The renewal for the period January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1987, if it arises, may be disposed of within a period of two months after an application is made therefor in proper time. 27.. Interim orders with regard to assessments for the four quarters ending December 31, 1986 and December 31, 1987 shall continue pending disposal of the matter by the Assistant Commissioner. There is no injunction with regard to the assessment for the four quarters ending December 31, 1985. 28.. The application is thus disposed of in terms of the above order. There will be no order for costs. S.P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman).-I agree. L.N. RAY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 232 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... cause it is not necessary to do so but since we have already held that in the facts and circumstances and having regard to the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the time-limit of six months laid down in the remand order dated April 12, 1990, was not mandatory in character so as to take away the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal below to hear the revision afresh. It may be mentioned that the order was passed only four days after expiry of six months directed in the remand order. Accordingly, the present application fails and it is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. After the judgment has been dictated, Mr. P.K. Bose, learned advocate for the applicant, submits that the judgment and order may be kept stayed for three months for enabling them to move the Supreme Court. Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative, opposes the prayer. The operation of the judgment and order passed today is stayed for six weeks from today. Application dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 231 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty 1976 1 SCC 311 AIR 1976 SC 376, it will not be binding. In the present matter, the alleged admission cannot be considered to be an admission at all since even the basic requirement of law has not been complied with. In order to give a finding that the goods are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts, the registers and other documents maintained in the course of his business or in any other satisfactory manner, a finding has to be given to this effect and this finding could be given only after examination of books of account or other documents or any other satisfactory manner. Since no such finding was given for this basic requirement of the law nor the compliance thereof was made by examining the books of accounts, documents, etc., the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the penalty. The order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 230 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... una is left by the assessing authority, it may be because of ignorance of law or may be to help the assessee so that the collection of the amount will be shown in their target and the assessee will also be happy to get refund of the same subsequently. It will be for the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to issue proper instructions as to in what manner and in which cases there should be the search of the shop, physical stock taking, the manner in which it is to be taken, the documents to be prepared, the time when the officer has reached and left the business premises, the reporting of the matter to the higher authorities and the like matters, by which a tax evader is not getting benefit on account of laches of the assessing authority and due taxes and penalties come to the coffer of the State Government. The Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in upholding the order setting aside penalty. Consequently, the revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 229 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imited is the first sale, notwithstanding the relevant statutory provisions that existed during the relevant time. We answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 20.. On question No. 2 we hold that the Revenue has failed to prove or demonstrate that any device , as alleged, was employed, that the true nature of the dear , looked at as a whole, was only with a business purpose or commercial purpose and so genuine and real. We answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. On question No. 5 we hold that the finding that extra price was realised by M/s. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited from the Beverages Corporation for the property for goodwill and brand name is a finding of fact and it was validly adjudicated as an ancillary or incidental aspect to the main issue raised in the case. We answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 21.. We dismiss the tax revision cases with costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 228 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... payable, then it is not an offence under section 16(1)(e) and as discussed above, it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether the offence under section 16(1)(j) has been committed or not. In the present case, penalty under section 16(1)(j) was upheld and as such it could not be said that any offence under section 16(1)(e) has been committed. The particulars given in the return were correct and there is no column in the return where the amount of tax collected has to be shown. The return has contemplated only the tax payable, which has to be shown therein and not the tax collected. No offence under section 16(1)(e) can be said to have been committed in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for quashing the penalty levied under section 16(1)(e) of the Act. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 227 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te price for the sale of the commodity with warranty and without warranty or it was one price as contended by Mr. Bafna in all cases and if it is found that the price was one whether the warranty is taken or not, then no benefit can be availed by the assessee. But if the amounts charged are separate for the value of the commodity and the warranty charges and the said payment have not been collected from all the dealers, then the same will not form part of the sale price. In view of the decision given by this Court I am of the view that the matter should go back to the assessing authority for recording finding as to whether the warranty charges were optional and whether they were separately charged. The assessee shall produce the books of accounts, documents and the agreement in proof of the contentions raised by him that the said charges do not form part of the sale price. With these observations, the revision is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 226 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der has already been passed then the assessee would be entitled to challenge that order and no decision can be given in respect thereof. If the order has not been passed within the limitation as prescribed under section 10B(2) then no order can be passed now and it would be for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to see as to who is the officer responsible for not framing the assessment by which the Revenue is deprived of its lawful dues. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall make an enquiry into the matter and take necessary action in accordance with law against the defaulting officer. With these observations the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and no decision is given in respect of the various questions raised by the petitioner, and in respect of the question framed it is held that the fresh assessment if not already framed within the time-limit prescribed under section 10B(2) cannot now be framed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... refore, has no applications to the case on hand. Consequently I see no merit in the stand taken by the respondents and there shall be a declaration, instead of mandamus as prayed for, that the product of the petitioners, viz., mosquito mats under the brand name Good Knight falls under entry 66 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The writ petition shall stand ordered accordingly. No costs. W.P. No. 13093 of 1989 In the light of the orders pronounced by me in the other writ petition, the petitioner in this writ petition who is only a dealer of the product manufactured by the petitioners in the other writ petition is entitled to the relief of declaration that on being shown that the product dealt with by him has already suffered tax at the single point shall not be once again subjected to any further taxation under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The writ petition shall stand ordered in the above terms. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 224 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er the provision. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal has recorded a finding that the machineries have been put to same use by a sister concern and thus, it impliedly means that there was no mens rea. It was by virtue of the decision taken by the Government not to manufacture ghee in the unit of the assessee and to get it manufactured in the unit of the Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation, then no mens rea can be imputed. As a matter of fact there is no finding given by the assessing authority that there was any mens rea on the part of the assessee. On the basis of the provisions of section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the reasonings of the Sales Tax Tribunal, 1 am of the view that neither there is any finding of mens rea by the assessing authority nor it has been so proved and the Sales Tax Tribunal found it to be a reasonable excuse. No case for interference is made out. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held by them or to be granted to them in future. It is made clear that the mere supply of C forms as per this directions shall not exonerate the petitioners of any liabilities under section 10-A of the Central Act and the right of the respondents or the concerned and competent authorities to take appropriate action against the dealers concerned under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, without reference to any of the observations made in this order which are confined to a consideration of the stage of supply of C forms and have nothing to do with any liability or otherwise that may be incurred by the dealers concerned or the rights acquired by the department or its officers to proceed against the petitioners for any violation or misuse of the C forms in accordance with law. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated supra reserving the right of the respondents, as noticed above. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
........
|
