|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 268 Records
-
1994 (2) TMI 289 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the petitioner, he has not taken any steps to make the payment. According to the learned Government Pleader, since the petitioner has not paid the amount in response to the notice dated May 21, 1987, it is for the Commercial Tax Officer now to initiate action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The petitioner without paying the amount has filed this writ petition and obtained stay thereby preventing the Commercial Tax Officer from recovering the misappropriated amount. Under these circumstances, the respondent shall be at liberty to initiate action under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for the ascertained amount of Rs. 34,912.88 (rupees thirty-four thousand nine hundred and twelve and paise eighty-eight only), together with interest thereon from November 14, 1986 at 12 per cent per annum till the date of payment. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 288 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have been possible only if there was anything on record to prove that the enhanced rate of entrance fee was charged by the petitioner. Since there was nothing on record to prove that the enhanced rate was charged for the period as mentioned by the petitioner it was not proper to fix the composition fee. So far as the other mistake is concerned, it has been submitted by the earned counsel for the respondents that the mistake exists in the calculation also. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and the Additional Commissioner are set aside and the matter is sent back for re-calculation of the amount of composition. The respondents would charge the composition fee on the basis of old rate from May 1 to October 31, 1992 and so far as the period from November 1 is concerned, the amount as fixed shall remain as such subject to the corrections and calculations as above. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 287 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hange in the chemical composition of the strips, which continue to retain their original properties and characteristics. There is therefore no reason much less a compelling one why the two should not be treated to be the same for purpose of payment of sales tax, nor was any such reason pointed out to me by the respondents to justify the taking of a view different from the one taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in regard to the same category of goods. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the clarification issued by the second respondent as also the show cause notice issued by the first respondent proposing to tax the petitioner s turnover on cold rolled strips manufactured out of tax-paid hot rolled strips are unsustainable. In the result this petition succeeds and the impugned clarification dated February 12, 1988, as also the show cause notice dated June 16, 1989, are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute. The parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... terials before him. Further action must then be taken in accordance with law based on the finding given by the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances of the case, we also direct that the appellant shall remain under suspension from today and he be dealt with according to the rules and regulations applicable to him in this behalf. The appellant, during the period of his suspension commencing from today shall be paid subsistence allowance at the current rates in accordance with the rules. The appellant shall report to the Zonal Manager, Chandigarh Zone of the respondent-bank on March 1, 1994 for taking further directions in this behalf and he shall fully cooperate with the authorities to enable completion of the inquiry as early as possible and preferably by the end of May 1994. 6. Consequently the appeal is allowed in this manner with the result that the order of dismissal made against the appellant is set aside and his writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated. No costs.
-
1994 (2) TMI 285 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the main charging section and does not cover turnover tax under section 6-B of that Act, the Karnataka High Court held that the definition of tax includes not only tax under the main charging section, but also turnover tax. This decision is in fact against the petitioners. The next decision is ABN Food and Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1990 77 STC 339 (Cal). This is similar to Karnataka case. Here also the notification gives benefit of tax holiday to certain small units from the tax payable under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act. The Calcutta High Court held that the tax payable under that Act includes turnover tax levied under section 4AAA. As already seen, while dealing with Karnataka case, this decision goes against the petitioners. Thus, we reject all the three contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No other contention is urged. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at admission stage. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 284 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It also shows that with effect from the year 1983-84, there has been a regular annual increase of 10 per cent in total compensation amount. Considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the particulars given in annexure A.R-3, the statutory changes referred to above have no significance. Entry tax remains compensatory in nature and, therefore, it is immune from challenge. 24.. For the aforesaid reasons, we repel the challenge against the vires of the Entry Tax Act. We may mention in passing that learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain aspects of interpretation and application of the Entry Tax Act were canvassed in a batch of writ petitions and the Indore Bench has heard the same and judgment is awaited. For this reason, we do not advert to those aspects which will be decided in that batch of writ petitions. 25.. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 1,000 in each of the writ petitions. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 283 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not made, no grievance can be made in this appeal at this stage. No opportunity was sought to that effect by the appellant. Therefore, this submission is only an afterthought. 6.. Lastly it was contended that the order in revision cannot go beyond the scope of show cause notice. There cannot be any dispute that the show cause notice-annexure B dated September 11, 1991, was confined to the items mentioned in para 2 of the show cause notice which covered purchase of raw materials from a registered dealer, viz., M/s. Wood Resins. Therefore, it is obvious that the order of the Additional Commissioner will also be read in the light of the items listed in para 2 of the show cause notice which the assessee had purchased from M/s. Wood Resins. It has nothing to do with any other items purchased from any other registered dealers who may admittedly be functioning within the limits of Mysore. The appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid clarifications. Appeal dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 282 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the light of exhibit P1 Government Order. 12.. In the light of my above finding, I set aside exhibits P2, P4 and P6 orders and notices made by the respondents demanding payment of tax at 10 per cent in respect of finished rubber products from the petitioner for the relevant years. I also declare that for the relevant period, the petitioner is liable to pay only 3 per cent of the sales tax on finished products. There cannot be any recovery for any amount excess than the 3 per cent levy by way of sales tax from the petitioner. The original petition is allowed to that extent. 13.. It is perfectly open for the assessing authority to take into consideration the effect of exhibit PI notification as declared by this Court in this judgment and make final order of assessment accordingly. In the light of the findings entered into by this Court in this original petition, the original petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 281 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C 364 and in Builders Association of India v. State of Karnataka 1993 88 STC 248 1993 1 SCC 409. But there should be some provision in the RST Act or the Rules to provide deduction of charges for labour and other services to cover all deductions which are required to be deducted from the value of the works contract for determining the value of the goods involved in the works contract on which tax is leviable. The net result of the above discussions is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley s case 1993 88 STC 204 (SC) 1993 1 SCC 364 whereby section 5(3) of the RST Act and rule 29(2)(i) of the Rules have been declared unconstitutional and void, sales tax cannot be charged on a works contract, unless the Act and the Rules are suitably amended in the light of the said decision. Consequently, all the petitions are allowed, as indicated above. Parties are left to bear their own costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 280 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thout affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that Commissioner can order for amendment or cancellation of the certificate of registration in the given circumstances. Clause (c) envisages cancellation for any other sufficient cause. All that it envisages is a right of hearing is to be afforded to the person concerned. Admittedly, the Commissioner had delegated powers to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner as per section 15 of the Act. Commissioner, otherwise also has inherent powers of superintendence and control of jurisdiction, which he can delegate as well, as per section 15 of the Act. Construed so, the order passed by the authority amending the registration certificate cannot be termed to be without jurisdiction. Thus, we find no merit in any of the submissions made by the petitioner and consequently, dismiss this petition. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was held in National Heavy Engineering s case 1994 93 STC 265 (P and H) that provisions of section 5(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act were totally different from the provisions of section 26(2) of the Haryana Act. Reported in 1994 93 STC 265 (P and H). Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case assessments have not been finalised by the Assessing Authority. Petitioner, if he has not already filed the returns for the relevant assessment years may do so within two months from today. If the returns have already been filed or the returns which might be filed within two months from this date should be finalised by the Assessing Authority within six months from today, if not already finalised. In case it is found that the assessee is entitled to any refund then the same be made to him without delay in accordance with law. Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 278 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The next point raised was based on section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 15 of the Act imposes certain restrictions on the levy of tax. It was stated that woollen fabrics being declared goods the levy of tax at 15 per cent by item 100B is violative of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Here again, section 14 describes woollen fabrics as defined in item No. 21 of the First Schedule to the Central Act and therefore the amendments to the Central Act automatically restrict the applicability of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Therefore, when woollen carpets went out of item 21 in the Central Act by the Amendment Act of 1979, automatically, section 14 ceased to apply to carpets and the restrictions imposed by section 15 no longer operated in relation to woollen carpets. 6.. All the contentions raised by the petitioner are therefore unsustainable. The original petition is dismissed without however any order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 277 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for amounts due from the petitioner under the order, exhibit P3, as if the amounts were not adjustable against each other. The notice, exhibit P6, is unsustainable and contrary to law. The reason stated by the Government Pleader for the non-adjustment that an appeal had been filed against the appellate order, exhibit P2, and that was pending, is no reason at all, because the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 95,624.80 by way of refund under the order of assessment exhibit PI itself, which was more than sufficient to cover the entire demand under the order exhibit P3. The proceedings for recovery initiated by the first respondent are therefore liable to be quashed. The original petition is therefore allowed and the proceedings initiated by exhibit P6 are quashed. Since the recovery proceedings were uncalled for in the circumstances of this case. and oppressive, I direct the respondents to pay the costs of the petitioner, including advocate s fee of Rs. 500. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 276 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 969/80 uninfluenced by anything stated in S.R.O. No. 499/90. 6.. Since the claim for exemption under S.R.O. No. 969/80 has not been considered by the authority specified therein to issue the eligibility certificate, viz., the second respondent, but by an extraneous body, viz., the District Level Committee, the second respondent has to be directed to consider the application afresh in the light of the terms and conditions specified in the notification, without being influenced by the decision taken by the District Level Committee. 7.. Exhibit P5 is therefore quashed. The original petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner s application for exemption in the light of the observations contained in this judgment with opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. He shall pass fresh orders in the matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 275 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... filing these admittedly untrue returns is essentially a question of fact, which has been considered by the authorities and found against. The huge amount of turnover suppressed, the consistent conduct of the petitioner for two years successively as also the delay in filing the revised returns is sufficient to establish that the petitioner s conduct was not bona fide, and that on the other hand her conduct was one which warranted action under section 45A of the Act. The three authorities have concurrently found against the assessee and I do not find any error justifying interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the question of penalty, the Deputy Commissioner has acted fairly in reducing the penalty for 1983-84 from Rs. 17,788 to Rs. 8,894. For the first year 1982-83 the penalty imposed was only Rs. 5,000. 4.. I do not therefore find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The original petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 274 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion 34 of the Act. 5.. At the same time the petitioner should not be deprived of the appellate remedy because of the delay, inasmuch as he has come forward with this writ petition within a month of receipt of the orders of assessment, namely, January 25, 1991, as stated in the original petition. Accordingly I dispose of the original petition with the following directions The petitioner is permitted to file appeals against the orders, exhibits P1 and P2, on or before March 11, 1994, if he has not already done so. If the appeals are so filed, the said appeals will be dealt with and disposed of by the appellate authority functioning under section 34 of the Act as if they had been filed in time. The collection of the tax demanded as per exhibits P1 and P2 will be kept in abeyance till and inclusive of March 21, 1994 to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority for appropriate orders of stay. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (2) TMI 273 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... remained unpaid . This appears to be a mistake. This mistake now appears to have developed into a new point . Whatever that be, the assessee did not take up this point either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Board of Revenue. It is not even argued before the learned single Judge. No such point was taken in the writ petition also. Thus, by his own conduct the assessee is seen to have waived the said point if at all it is considered to be a relevant point. He is, therefore, precluded from taking advantage of this error at the final stage of the litigation. It is for the first time we see the point in the memorandum of writ appeal. We do not see any substance in this point and we consider it a bona fide mistake from which nothing emerges. No serious argument is advanced before us in so far as this new point . We are completely in agreement with the conclusions of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... du General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for condoning the delay in filing the revision petitions. It is now brought to our notice by learned Additional Government Pleader for Taxes that by oversight, it was not brought to our notice that in these two petitions, there was a delay of only 8 days. After noticing this mistake, it was mentioned to us to be taken up rectify the same. Hence, these matters are taken up. On verification, we are satisfied that the delay in filing these cases is only 8 days. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to condonation of the delay, having regard to the provisions contained in the Act. Hence, we modify the common order dated December 17, 1993 in so far as it relates to T.C.M.Ps. 298 and 299 of 1993 and recall that portion of the order and allow T.C.M.Ps. 298 and 299 of 1993, consequently direct TC (R) SRs. 44221 and 44223 of 1991 to register and post them for admission. In other respects, the common order dated December 17, 1993, stands undisturbed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... March 21, 1991, the penalty proceeding initiated, was dropped. In view of these orders passed by the authorities themselves, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) is unable to argue seriously anything contra. 6.. That apart, earlier, the petitioners have also filed W.P. No. 4997 of 1990 for a mandamus to direct the authority concerned to issue C form, with reference to purchase of explosives for their abovesaid mining business. By order dated October 31, 1991, this Court also granted mandamus prayed for. 7.. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice the meaning of the terms mining operations as found in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 12 at page 249. The extract found therein is as follows Mining operations These include use of explosives, drilling, hoisting, loading and haulage and ventilation and lighting. 8.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the mandamus is issued as prayed for. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (2) TMI 270 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant can discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any other equivalent post carrying the pay scale of Rs 1400-2300?
Held that:- When an employee is afflicted with unfortunate disease due to which, when he is unable to perform the duties of the posts he was holding, the employer must make every endeavour to adjust him in a post in which the employee would be suitable to discharge the duties. Asking the appellant to discharge the duties as a Carrier Attendant is unjust. Since he is a matriculate, he is eligible for the post of LDC. For LDC, apart from matriculation, passing in typing test either in Hindi or English at the speed of 15/30 words per minute is necessary. For a Clerk, typing generally is not a must.Thus the respondent Board directed to relax his passing of typing test and to appoint him as an LDC protecting his scale of pay of Rs 1400-2300 and direct to pay all the arrears of salary.
........
|
