|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 374 Records
-
1994 (11) TMI 411 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd grant of certificate of trade mark, if goods are sold without trade mark tax cannot be levied at 10 per cent single point as per the unamended provision. Hence the amendment was brought out to rope in the goods sold without trade mark in-between the date of application of trade mark and the grant of certificate of trade mark, for levy at 10 per cent single point. Considering the facts arising in this case and entry No. 103 in the First Schedule as on the relevant assessment year under consideration, we are of the opinion that the turnover of Rs. 9,11,497 should be taxed at 5 per cent multi-point instead of 10 per cent single point. 8.. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal directing to tax the abovesaid amount at 10 per cent single point, is set aside, and we direct the department to tax, the turnover of Rs. 9,11,497 at 5 per cent multi-point. Accordingly, the revision filed by the assessee is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 410 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Sales Tax v. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indonational Limited, Ghaziabad (1989 UPTC pages 324 and 382). In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. 1989 UPTC 324 reference was also made to section 3A(2A). In the last paragraph, it is held that dry cell batteries are taxable at the rate of 7 per cent under sub-section (2A) of section 3A ever since May 20, 1976. The order was passed on July 21, 1979, which covers the case of the petitioner which is for assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. Thus, in view of this also, the issuance of notice under section 21 of the Act not only is illegal but suffers from jurisdictional error and thus not sustainable. Accordingly the said notice dated May 8, 1981, for both years that is 1977-78 and 1978-79 (annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition) is quashed. Accordingly we allow the petition with costs. The stay order dated June 26, 1981, is vacated. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 409 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any evidence to this effect. The Tribunal, in the order under revision, referred to the same letter, but did not reach any conclusion as to whether the wire supplied by the assessee was insulated wire or bare wire. Having regard to the wording of entry 38, we are inclined to take the view that if what is supplied is an insulated wire, it would be within the meaning of electrical goods and would fall under entry 38(i) but if what was supplied was bare wire it could not be brought within entry 38(i) and would, therefore, be taxable under section 5(1) of the Act. As there is no definite finding by the Tribunal as to what was supplied whether it was insulated wire or bare wire, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal on this aspect and remit the matter to the Tribunal to determine as to whether the goods supplied by the assessee was insulated wire or bare wire. The revision cases are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (11) TMI 408 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gality in the order of the Tribunal on this aspect. So far as the second contention is concerned, the disputed turnover was sought to be taxed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the raw material from which steel re-rollers were manufactured, had not suffered tax. Though this is a condition precedent for application of G.O. Ms. No. 88, dated January 28, 1977, yet that is not the ground mentioned in the show cause notice for purposes of revising the assessment. It needs no emphasis to observe that the exercise of power under section 20 of the said Act by the revisional authority could only be on the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, otherwise, the very purpose of affording the reasonable opportunity by giving a show cause notice would become a farce formality. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the contentions of the Government on this aspect. We, therefore, find no merit in these revisions. They are accordingly dismissed, but no costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 407 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the import of the goods into the territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such import or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods before the goods have crossed the customs frontiers of India. The result of the revision ultimately depends on the question whether the purchase of the goods occasioned the import of the goods into the territory of India. This is purely a question of fact. On the material placed before it, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the transactions in question occasioned the movement of the goods into the territory of India on account of the purchase of the goods. In view of this finding of fact, the contention that the transaction does not fall within the purview of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Central Act, cannot be accepted. The revision, therefore, fails and we accordingly dismiss the same, but in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 406 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s that the meaning of the word is to be judged by the company it keeps. It is clear that the word sealed applies both to the words packets and containers . The intention of the Legislature is amply clear and can be discerned by application of plain language formula of interpretation of statutes. Even if there is any doubt, its benefits must go to the tax-payer. In this context, it may be noted that with the passage of time, the Legislature adopted a policy of totally exempting salt from the sales tax. 6. We, therefore, record our answer to the question in the positive and in favour of the petitioner. The inevitable result of the above answer is the quashing of the impugned assessment orders, for which the empty formality of sending back the case to the Division Bench is not necessary. 7. To conclude, the petition is allowed and the impugned assessment orders are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. R.K. PATRA, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 405 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is made of metal is not, in our opinion, sufficient to brand it as a metallic product falling under entry 121. Being a sales tax enactment what is relevant is how a common man will understand the entry or how exactly the term metallic product will be understood in common parlance. A person in need of any industrial thermometer is not likely to resort to a metal shop for purchasing the same nor is he likely to treat it as a product of metal without any other quality. We are, therefore, in agreement with the Tribunal that an industrial thermometer cannot be treated as a metallic product falling under entry 121 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revision is without any merit and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 404 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have registration under section 9, but yet the dealer had made an application for voluntary registration under section 9-A by exercising his option and in that context the question had arisen as to whether the liability would accrue from the date of application or the date of registration. We fail to understand how the answer to the said question can have any application to the present case where on examination of records, it has been found that the liability had accrued since February 1, 1981, as the gross turnover of the dealer had exceeded. In the aforesaid premises, we answer the question posed in favour of the department and against the assessee and hold that the liability will not be deferred either to the date of registration under section 9-A or the date of application for registration, but the dealer would be assessed from the date when the liability had been incurred under section 4 of the Act. P.C. NAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered in favour of the department.
-
1994 (11) TMI 403 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt and examining the so-called contract of sale as well as the terms and conditions therein and the findings arrived at by the forums below, it is difficult for us to hold that the movement of goods has occasioned from one State to the other as a result of any covenant in the contract of sale or even an incident of that contract. In our considered opinion, no conceivable link has been established between the sale and the movement of goods. In this view of the matter, our answer to the question posed is that the majority view of the Tribunal holding the sale to be an intra-State sale and not an inter-State sale is wholly justified and the transaction cannot be said to be a transaction in the course of inter-State sale within the ambit of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Our answer to the question thus posed is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. P.C. NAIK, J.-I agree. Reference answered in favour of the Revenue.
-
1994 (11) TMI 402 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ervations and directions contained in this judgment as well as the judgment of the Full Bench in Moidoo s case 1995 97 STC 1 (Ker) supra 1994 2 KLT 251. In O.P. Nos. 892 and 971 of 1988, petitioners have taken an additional contention that being small-scale industrial units, they are entitled to certain exemptions from payment of sales tax. These aspects will also be considered by the assessing authority at the time of finalising their assessment. The rate and point at which tax can be levied in respect of the material involved in the deemed sale are also matters to be considered by the assessing authority. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions in 1993 88 STC 204 (Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Rajasthan) and 1993 88 STC 248 (Builders Association of India v. State of Karnataka) will be kept in mind by the assessing authorities while finalising the assessment orders. The original petitions stand partly allowed as above. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 401 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Revenue Commissioner 1921 1 KB 64). The explicit language of section 5-B rules out the possibility of a dealer not having his manufacturing unit seeking the benefit of lower rate of tax it is not a provision conferring benefit on manufacturers in general who engage in the activity of production of finished goods in the State with raw materials, component units and intermediate parts purchased from dealers in the State. We cannot narrow down the definite language against the State and stretch it in favour of the petitioners. The benefit covers only one class of dealers-those having their manufacturing units within the State, but not others. We are, therefore, of the view that the rejection of the request of the petitioners by the authorities for issue of form G for the purpose of registration as manufacturers cannot be faulted. For these reasons, both the writ petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without cost. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 400 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Bombay jewels had to be taken into account, still the estimate of turnover is arbitrary and out of all proportion to the alleged suppression of Rs. 10,61,289. The addition made is, on the facts, unreasonable, oppressive and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. 12.. The order of the Tribunal for the year 1988-89 has therefore to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for re-determining the quantum of turnover liable to be assessed. We dismiss T.R.C. No. 157 of 1992 relating to the assessment year 1987- 88. We allow T.R.C. No. 158 of 1992 and remit the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for determining the taxable turnover afresh for the year 1988-89 in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Since the assessment is of the year 1988-89, the Tribunal shall expedite the hearing, and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (11) TMI 399 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that the fact that the value of the materials supplied was specified at a rate and was set-off or deducted from any sum due to the contractor, indicated that a sale inhered from the transaction as by the use or consumption of the materials in the work of construction, there was passing of the property in the goods to the assessee from the Public Works Department and by the agreement there was a sale from the Public Works Department to the assessee. In that case there was a clear finding that the property in the goods passed of to the assessee, but in the case on hand, as already concluded by us, the property in the goods did not pass of to the assessee. Therefore, this decision also does not help the petitioner. In the view we have expressed, it is unnecessary to consider the second question. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the tax revision cases and we, accordingly, dismiss them without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 398 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ification. On the other hand it has been averred and urged by the petitioner that every detail, including names, addresses and credit note number by which the amount has been paid, has been given to the assessing authority. It is for the assessing authority to ascertain the veracity of such statement. Accordingly we allow the writ petition with costs and direct the respondents not to withdraw the refund/adjustment voucher No. 44 dated November 8, 1988 and will verify within a period of three months the veracity of which has been filed before the said authority after giving opportunity to the person concerned regarding the said payment having been made and only in case any amount is not verified, that amount will be adjusted towards the amount already deposited by the petitioner which is to the tune of Rs. 92,837.56 and then pass consequential order of refunding the amount if any amount found remaining with the respondents to the petitioner accordingly. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 397 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt. It is not open to the assessee to file the second set of applications for restoration of the appeals and the enhancement applications. When once the Tribunal dismissed the first set of restoration applications, thereafter, it is not open to the Tribunal to review its earlier orders passed in the appeals and the enhancement applications and in the first set of restoration applications. Considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in allowing the second set of miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee. 11.. Accordingly, the common order passed by the Tribunal in the second set of miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee is set aside, and the common order passed by the Tribunal in the first set of miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee stands restored. 12.. In the result, the revision cases are allowed. But there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y mind of the assessee is established in issuing C forms for purchase of goods which are not stated in the registration certificate and hence the authorities below correctly invoked the provisions of section 10A of the Act. The Tribunal without assigning proper reasons cancelled the penalty. The authorities below after considering that the assessee has issued C forms to purchase the goods which are not stated in the registration certificate held that penalty is exigible under section 10(b) of the Act. In the abovesaid circumstances we consider that there is no justification on the part of the Tribunal in cancellation of penalty levied under section 10(b) of the Act. In that view of the matter the order of the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty is set aside and the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in imposing penalty under section 10(b) of the Act stands restored. Accordingly, the revision filed by the department stands allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 395 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s barred by limitation. (2) That it is unable to reply to the notice as it has no books. (3) That the appellate authority has correctly passed the order. The revising authority did not consider the effect of these contentions, but summarily rejected the same stating that they are not tenable as is evident from the show cause notice. 3.. The appropriate way of dealing with the matter is to consider the contentions raised by the party concerned particularly the question relating to the limitation which could not have been considered in the course of the show cause notice at all although the merits of the order passed by the appellate authority might have been considered. 4.. In the circumstances, the order made by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II, Bangalore, cannot be sustained, the same is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the revisional authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Appeal allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 394 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ision Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kedia Vanaspati (P) Ltd. 1994 95 STC 208 to which one of us (Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, J.) was a party. To the same effect is the pronouncement in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ratna Sree Box Makers 1989 75 STC 82 (AP). That being the position in law, the exercise of power under section 14(4) in the instant case on the mere ground that the assessing authority did not advert to the aspect, viz., that there has been purchase of the silver and gold ornaments from an unregistered dealer, cannot be a justifiable reason. In our view the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the original authority himself did not advert to the aspect of purchase of old jewellery by the assessee and also utilisation of the old jewellery in the manufacture of new jewellery which was sold by the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under revision is set aside and the T.R.C. is accordingly allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 393 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oner, strenuously contended that the closing stock cannot be taken as the basis for assessing the sales tax. Therefore, the assessment is bad as the goods were in fact sold out in the next assessment year resulting in someone else being the last purchaser. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner purchased the goods for purposes of consumption in the mill. Due to some supervening events, the petitioner sold the stock of jute in subsequent years. That could not determine the question whether the petitioner was the last purchaser or not in the relevant year because the petitioner himself has declared before the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority that it was the last purchaser of the goods. In the circumstances, we find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference in this tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (11) TMI 392 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e goods during their movement from one State to another. A perusal of the provision extracted above makes it clear that if the sale or purchase is effected by transfer of document of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another, it shall be deemed to be sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The explanations to this provision are not relevant for our purpose. Admittedly, there was a transfer of document of title to the goods while the goods were in transit from the State of Andhra Pradesh to the State of Karnataka. So, by definition, the transaction is an inter-State sale. The further ground given by the Tribunal that the assessee was having F forms is not relevant because they were not certified and acted upon by the assessing authority. In this view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal. It is accordingly set aside. The revision is allowed but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Petition allowed.
........
|
