|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 200 Records
-
1992 (4) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lls Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1985 60 STC 113 (Mad.) and in Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 86 STC 17 infra. 27.. In the light of the above decisions, we feel that there is no need to refer the matter to a Full Bench as that decision in 1983 54 STC 88 (Mad.) (R.K. Manufacturers v. Board of Revenue) is not a binding authority. 28.. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the stainless steel wires and stainless steel tube, manufactured by the assessees in these cases are declared goods exigible to tax as such. The contrary view taken by the Tribunal in the appeals against which Tax Case Nos. 630 to 632 of 1985, 96 to 98 of 1986 and 57 of 1991 have been preferred, is not correct and, therefore, these tax cases, namely, T.C. Nos. 630 to 632 of 1985, 96 to 98 of 1986 and 57 of 1991 are allowed. Consequently, T.C. Nos. 218 and 631 to 633 of 1989 wherein the Tribunal has taken the view which in accordance with the view taken by us, are dismissed. No costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 221 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hem to Indian shores. Nor can REP licences be held to be actionable claims because the customs authorities might not clear the goods and the transferee would have to commence an action against them in a court of law. In our view, the transfer of an REP licence confers upon the transferee a right which is choate and perfected and exercisable immediately he presents to the customs barrier goods of the nature covered thereby. It must, therefore, follow that REP licences are goods within the meaning of the said Act and the premium or price received by the transferor thereof is liable to sales tax thereunder. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Upon the application of Mr. Chagla, learned counsel for the appellant, the respondents shall not take any further steps against the appellant based upon the said circular and notice and any action already taken pursuant thereto for a period of 12 weeks from today. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... December, 1953. The Supreme Court, in peculiar facts where an advantage is conferred on the assessee, upheld the retrospective operation of the powers of the Income-tax Commissioner to reduce or waive interest payable by the assessee. This decision, in our judgment, cannot entitle the State Government to claim that in the absence of power either specific or by implication, the delegated authority can frame rules imposing fiscal liability on the assessee with retrospective effect. In our judgment, the proviso to sub-rule (3)(a) of rule 41D can come into force only from the date of publication of Government Notification dated August 10, 1983. 5.. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and it is declared that though the proviso to sub-rule (3)(a) of rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, is valid, the operation of the proviso can come into force only with effect from August 10, 1983. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 219 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the State Act provides for levy of tax and speaks of taxable turnover which has been defined under section 2(r) of the Act. 14.. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, heavily relying upon sub-clause (iii) of clause (r) of section 2 which defines taxable turnover and referring to expression circumstance as occurring in sub-section (1) of section 7 of the State Act, strenuously urged that purchase tax could not be levied on the petitioner. This submission deserves to be rejected. Reading section 7(1) as a whole, and coupled with our conclusion as recorded above, that the goods scrap iron as purchased by the petitioner is used or consumed in the manufacture or processing of other goods, namely, iron rods and angles, petitioner s contention that purchase tax is not leviable, must fail. 15.. For the foregoing reasons this petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 218 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ces will be struck down for the reasons stated above, we do not think it necessary to enter into the question whether crockery made of stoneware was comprehended in item 12 of Notification No. 3945-F.T. dated August 26, 1977. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned notices for review in form IX dated November 24, 1987 for the said three years are quashed. The main application is thus disposed of. No order is made as to costs. After the order is dictated, the learned State Representative submits that a stay of operation of the order may be allowed for ten weeks. Mr. Somen Bose, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that if any stay is allowed, the interim order should continue to remain in force for the period of stay. After hearing both sides, it is ordered that the operation of the order shall remain stayed for eight weeks from today, during which period the interim order which had been passed in this case will remain in force. Application allowed.
-
1992 (4) TMI 217 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f section 5(1)(c) of the Act. In so far as the other item, namely, decorative panel is concerned, this in our opinion has not been shown on record to be constituent part of a television set, nor is it a spare part. This item should aptly fall in the category of accessories, as these are not essential for the functioning of a television set. As the entry at the relevant time included the term accessories this item known as decorative panel would be covered by the said entry. Similarly, turn knobs would also be covered by this entry because these apparently answer to the description of spare parts as these can be kept and used in emergency and are meant for replacement without any overhauling of the main instrument. This would be thus also falling under entry No. 4. Question No. 2 is accordingly answered partly in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee, in terms of the foregoing discussion. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1992 (4) TMI 216 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appealability Of Charge Of Interest, Best Judgment Assessment, Depreciation When Allowable ... ... ... ... ..... h a contention on the part of the assessee. In our opinion, the Revenue authorities were right in holding that the income so received was not entitled to the deduction under section 80-I. Before concluding we may note that a similar view has been expressed in Ashok Motors Ltd. v. CIT 1961 41 ITR 397 and CIT v. Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. 1962 46 ITR 814 by the Madras High Court and we are in respectful agreement with the same. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 1 for the year 1969-70 is similar to question No. 2 for the earlier year, questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for the year 1969-70 are similar to questions Nos. 3, 1 and 6 respectively, for the year 1968-69. For the reasons contained in our judgment for the assessment year 1968-69, questions Nos. 1 and 3, in addition to question No. 2, are answered in favour of the Revenue, while questions Nos. 4 and 5 are answered in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amounts received from the Government of Maharashtra during the financial years ended March 31, 1963, and March 31, 1964, are receipts of an income nature and taxable under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (sic) (1961) - nature of the receipt is determined entirely by its character in the hands of the receiver - hold that the amounts received by the assessee have to be regarded as capital receipts and, therefore, are not income u/s 2(24)
-
1992 (4) TMI 214 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1992 (4) TMI 207 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ior to the company s being declared a sick unit under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. While interpreting the words be proceeded with further as appearing in section 22(1) and in that context, disagreeing with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Testeels Ltd. v. Radhaben Ranchhodlal Charitable Trust 1989 66 Comp. Cas. 555, Dhanuka J. has held that in such circumstances a winding up petition is required to be kept merely in abeyance pending the inquiry under section 16 or preparation of scheme under section 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act or implementation of a sanctioned scheme. The facts in the instant case being different from those in those applications, the decision in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. 1993 78 Comp. Cas. 546 (Bom.) has no application. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs thereof.
-
1992 (4) TMI 199 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Inter-corporate investment, Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... n of this court under section 633 is not justified. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no doubt the company was started with the main object of carrying on the business of investments in shares, debentures and securities, but later, due to enlargement of its activities, the main object of the company had switched over to other than investments, which the petitioners were fully aware of and which led to the loss of the character of the company as an investment company and that they cannot claim to have acted honestly or reasonably. The petitioners who must be aware of the procedures as well as the restrictions made in the Companies Act, ought to have taken care to follow the provisions of amendments of the Act and the guidelines given by the Registrar of Companies. I have no other option except to reject the contentions of the petitioners. In the result, both the petitions, C. P. Nos. 93 and 101 of 1984, are dismissed, but without costs.
-
1992 (4) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... , where under the Supreme Court observed that there is no prohibition to either rely on the subsequent events as a piece of evidence to sustain the grounds already alleged or where, having regard to the question to be decided, if the court considers it necessary to base a decision on the altered circumstances in order to shorten the litigation or to do complete justice between parties. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that there is complete failure of the substratum and that there is absolutely no hope or scope of revival of the respondent-company. In my view, this ground alone is sufficient to order winding up of the respondent-company. Accordingly, this company petition is allowed and the respondent-company is ordered to be wound up under the provisions of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500 with the official liquidator within four weeks from today.
-
1992 (4) TMI 184 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Court – Jurisdiction of, Meetings and Proceedings – Extra Ordinary General Meeting, Manner of taking poll, Presumptions to be drawn where minutes duly drawn and signed
-
1992 (4) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Except in cases covered by the two provisos to sub-section (1) of section 23, there is a prohibition for a tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. This prohibition is, however, subject to a contract to the contrary. A tenant who sublets or assigns or transfers the premises in contravention of this prohibition loses the protection of law and can be evicted by the landlord under section 21(1)(f). The provisions of section 22(1) were not attracted to the eviction proceedings instituted by the respondents against the appellant-company.The provisions of section 22(1) did not, therefore, bar the prosecution of the said proceedings by the respondents and the order dated September 30, 1989, passed by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, allowing the eviction petition cannot be held to have been passed in contravention of the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act.
-
1992 (4) TMI 182 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Copy o winding up order to be filed with Registrar, Winding up – Overriding preferential payments, Payment of subsequent interest
-
1992 (4) TMI 164 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... nable time within which the availment of the enhanced rate of credit can be taken. Besides, the decision of the SRB, this Tribunal vide its Order No. 1902/91 dated, 16-10-1991 has taken the view that credit could be availed of by the party within the reasonable time. Here the respondents have availed of the credit within the period of six months and that the order of Collector (Appeals) does not suffer from any infirmity. 5A. emsp A legal point however as raised by the SDR is as to whether the Department in exercise of specific provision could be justified in denying the availment of differential credit. Rule 57D, though may not be providing for availment of higher notional credit at a later date, does not specifically debar from taking such credit. In view of this, therefore, the objection raised by the ld. SDR does not come in the way of denying the higher notional credit. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Department and hence the same is rejected.
-
1992 (4) TMI 163 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... diction and in that view set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector. Hence it appears prima facie that the Addl. Collector is required to issue a fresh show cause notice alleging suppression which leads to invoking the extended period. The Asstt. Collector directed them to place the papers before the Collector for such action necessary and such action would also include issue of a notice. We are prima facie of the view that the Collector (Appeals) by observing that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction have held the S.C.N. also held, since such a S.C.N. could not have been acted upon by the Addl. Collector. In this prima facie view, we direct the applicants to furnish a personal bond covering the duty amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order and report compliance within 5 weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On furnishing the personal bond, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the penalty amount.
-
1992 (4) TMI 162 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to High Court - Question of law ... ... ... ... ..... to do so. To reiterate, there is no challenge on the point that the order quashed by the Tribunal was a nullity, as passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice. The application, therefore merits no consideration and is rejected. 14. A prayer is made on behalf of the respondents, that the department has been, in spite of the directions from the Tribunal, not restoring the CHA licence, though considerable time has lapsed and that therefore, same directions be given for restoration forthwith. Though it may not be desirable to give any specific direction in relation thereto, in this proceedings, it is expected that the findings and directions from the Tribunal are honored and complied with, when they have assumed finality with no appeal provided against the same, and compliance is not delayed on same pretext on another. It is hoped that there would be no further delay in complying with the order of the Tribunal and CHA licence to the respondents is restored.
-
1992 (4) TMI 161 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... case of Paras Laminates - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322. We therefore request the President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide the appeals with special reference to the points arising out of the conflicting decisions, as indicated below. (i) Whether, during the period, when Rule 57E did not provide for adjustment in duty credit on account of payment of differential duty due to short levy or non-levy, credit of such differential duty paid, based on the certificate of payment of duty issued to the supplier of inputs, be taken under Rule 57A itself? (ii) Whether amendments to Rule 57E on 1-3-1987 and subsequent on 15-4-1987 are of clarificatory nature? (iii) Whether for this purpose, Rule 57A can be read without recourse to provisions of Rule 57E and Rule 57G? (iv) Whether, in a case where no credit was taken at all, initially at the time of receipt of inputs, can it be provided for subsequently under Rule 57A without reference to compliance to the provisions of Rules 57E and 57G?
-
1992 (4) TMI 160 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... abrasive. 5. On perusal of the sample, we find that it has been manufactured by Cut Fast Abrasive Tools Ltd. The name of the manufacturer itself suggests that they are recognised manufacturers of abrasive tools. Be that as it may, the undisputed position is that coated abrasive is used either manually or mounted on machine for purpose of smoothening the surface of wood and wooden articles. In other case, it is used as a hand tool or as a part of the machine for smoothening of wooden article. In this case, we find that it is a part of the machinery for the purpose of smoothening of wooden articles. Hence we are of the view that the Collector (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector. The inputs are in the nature of tools and hence are not eligible for MODVAT benefit, because of the explanation to Rule 57A. Hence we allow the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector.
........
|
