|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 355 Records
-
1995 (1) TMI 359 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... preliminary objection to prevail and dispose of this petition with the directions as under (i) The Commissioner shall consider and decide the application (annexure 4) within a period of three months from today in accordance with law and intimate the result to the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner is granted liberty to resort to an alternative remedy against the order (annexure R/6) within a period of one month from today. If the remedy is resorted to within this specified time, it shall not be contested and shall not fail on the ground of limitation and to that extent, the delay, as agreed to, shall be treated as condoned and the proceedings shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. (iii) The authority hearing such proceedings shall also pass appropriate order with regard to the sale proceeds as noted above in conformity with law. 14.. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands finally disposed of with no orders as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion 9 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. We are also of the opinion that the abovesaid order passed by the Tribunal is in order. While upholding the order passed by the Tribunal we direct the assessing officer, while re-doing the assessment to take into consideration the principles adumbrated in the decision reported in Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu 1991 82 STC 355 (Mad.). Accordingly this tax revision shall stand dismissed. T.C. No. 1028 of 1983 12. This case relates to additional tax levied by the assessing officer. The order for levying additional tax would depend upon the final assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, as a natural corollary we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in the matter of levy of additional tax and remit back this issue also to the assessing officer to consider the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
1995 (1) TMI 357 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... said reply of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated April 2, 1992, addressed to the appellant by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be instruction issued by the Commissioner under section 3(A)(2) to its subordinates. 21.. In this back ground, as noticed above, I can only say that the Commissioner and its office should henceforth forbear from sending replies to individual queries having bearing on assessments under the Act and communicating the gist thereof as guidelines to the statutory assessing authorities except in a manner provided under section 3A of the Act. 22.. To conclude, it is held that for the purpose of computing taxable turnover under the first proviso to section 5(1-A) of the Act, the sales tax paid will also form part of the turnover envisaged therein. Assessments of the petitioners should be completed/rectified accordingly. 23.. Writ petitions are thus allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 356 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... easily verifiable by them. Accordingly, the Tribunal estimated and sustained an addition of Rs. 50,000 as the taxable turnover at 9 per cent and Rs. 3,600 at 4 per cent. But there is no discussion in the order passed by the Tribunal to show as to how these sums of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 3,600 are sustained and out of which amount. As already pointed out the addition sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with regard to these items amounted to Rs. 1,84,068 and Rs. 3,591. When these additions were deleted by the Tribunal on merits, in the earlier part of its order, it is not known on what basis, the addition of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 3,600 were sustained. In the absence of proper explanation for making such additions, we are unable to sustain the additions made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 3,600 made on the basis of the estimate stands deleted. 13.. In the result, the revision filed by the assessee is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 355 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he appeals before the Tribunal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s orders refusing to condone the delay in presentation and also against orders refusing to condone the delay in representation are maintainable under section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. According to the abovesaid decisions, orders rejecting the petition for excusing the delay is falling within the scope of section 33(3) of the TNGST Act and that, therefore, an appeal was maintainable. The present case is not for excusing the delay in either filing the appeal or in representing the appeal. Therefore, on facts, these decisions would render no assistance to the case relied on by the assessee. Thus considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncement cited supra, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. 7.. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the revision is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 3) of the Act on the basis of the original assessment made by the assessing officer will automatically become unsustainable. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for the department to file an enhancement petition to restore the penalty. It was submitted by the department that the assessing officer should be directed to levy penalty while re-doing the assessment. Such a direction is not possible. The assessing officer is re-doing the assessment as per the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. While completing the assessment, the power of assessing officer to levy penalty cannot be abrogated. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in confirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, both in the quantum appeal as well as in the penalty appeal. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and this tax revision filed by the department is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 353 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessing authority for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 remains unanswered. In view of this specific finding, we are not in a position to agree with the learned counsel that Tribunal refused to consider the evidence in the case. 5.. On the basis of the materials now available we are clear in our mind that the assessee, petitioner before us, did not succeed in showing the lubricating oil which was dealt with by the assessee had in fact suffered sales tax on account of the sale in favour of M/s. Radhakrishnan and Brothers. Therefore the assessee is liable for the sales tax in respect of the sales of the lubricating oil effected during 1987-88. The conclusions arrived at by the authorities below are purely findings of fact which is not to be canvassed in revision arising under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In view of what has been stated above, we dismiss the tax revision case summarily under section 41(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 352 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessing officer on October 12, 1978 is to be taken into account while arriving the time-limit for revision of assessment under section 32 of the Act. The date of order was mentioned wrongly in the Deputy Commissioner s order as February 6, 1976 instead of October 12, 1978. Therefore, revision order dated December 5, 1981 is within the period of limitation and the Tribunal was not correct in setting aside the order dated December 5, 1981. 8. Under such circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remit back the same to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the correct facts appearing in this case in accordance with law. The Tribunal is also directed to give proper opportunity to the assessee to put forward his case. 9.. In the result, the revision is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 351 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and rule 44-B framed thereunder are declared ultra vires. Sub-section (2) of section 8-D is also declared ultra vires. Similarly, sub-section (3) to sub-section (9) of section 8-D are also declared ultra vires in so far as they provide for deposit of deduction of tax at source into Government Treasury by a contractor from the payments made by him to his sub-contractor and the penalty provision including the provision for levy of interest relating thereto. However, there will be no order as to costs. Immediately after pronouncement of the judgment learned Standing Counsel orally prayed for grant of certificate of fitness to file an appeal before the honourable Supreme Court. In our view, the questions involved are concluded by the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no ground to grant certificate of fitness to file an appeal before the honourable Supreme Court. The prayer made is, therefore, refused. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 350 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... try 33(2) of the Schedule C to the Act (as it stood at the material time). 7. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of the Kerala High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sukumaran 1989 74 STC 185, wherein it was held that since the product Rasna was only a concentrate and not a liquid, it would not come within the ambit of the expression drinks or beverages and the decision in Brooke Bond India Limited v. State of Kerala 1992 84 STC 334 (Ker), where it was held that instant coffee-chicory powder sold under the brand name of Bru , being a powder, could not be treated as drink or beverage for the purpose of sales tax. 8. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question is also answered in favour of the assessee but in the negative. This reference is answered accordingly. 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 349 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rdingly, I allow this petition in part and quash the order dated November 8, 1985 (annexure B) to the extent of rejection of the application dated August 16, 1985, submitted for registration, letter dated November 18, 1985 (annexure D) and revisional order dated July 14, 1986 (annexure E) and direct the respondent No. 1 (Sales Tax Officer, Indore, Circle 4) to restore and revive the application dated August 16, 1985 and consider and decide the same afresh in conformity with law after noticing and giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this behalf. 10.. As the matter is quite old, the respondent No. 1 is also directed to make an endeavour to decide the application within a period of six months from today, under intimation to the petitioner. 11.. This petition, thus, stands allowed in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification. Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 348 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd Sadhana Enterprises v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1987 64 STC 172 (MP) 1986 19 VKN 74. 4.. Question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 relates to the alleged requirement to amend the memorandum of appeal. The assessee, after depositing the balance amount, did not seek amendment of the memorandum of appeal. His appeal was not dismissed on the ground of absence of amendment. Therefore, this question does not arise. It is agreed that question No. 3 also does not arise. 5.. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions 2 and 3 do not arise for consideration. First appeal before the appellate authority will have to be taken back on file and dealt with on merits. 6.. The reference is answered accordingly. 7.. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Board of Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erated by electricity or any other power and components, parts and accessories thereof, but excluding machinery and components, parts and accessories thereof specified in any other entry in this Schedule. Ten paise in the rupee. Ten paise in the rupee. nbsp (ii) Machine tools. Ten paise in the rupee. Ten paise in the rupee. It is obvious that after the insertion of the above entry, the washing plant sold by the assessee would fall under that entry and not under the residuary entry. 7. For the reasons set out above, we hold that Aspee-HPT washing plant sold by the assessee is not domestic or electrical appliance falling under entry 73(a) of Part II of Schedule C to the Act. It would, therefore, fall under entry 102 of Part II of Schedule C to the Act. 8. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1995 (1) TMI 346 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... own officer for the simple reason that the officer is presumed to have acted with the full authority and knowledge of the Government. Therefore, exhibit P2 is to be acted upon. However, the matter cannot be prolonged indefinitely. The question of exemption has to be decided with utmost dispatch so that amount, if any, due from the petitioner can be collected without undue delay. 5.. Accordingly, I dispose of the original petition by directing the third respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner s application for exemption from sales tax within a stipulated time. Therefore, the third respondent is directed to pass orders on the petitioner s application for exemption from sales tax within one month from today. Pending orders on petitioner s application for sales tax exemption, revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him pursuant to exhibits P3, P3(a) and P3(b) shall be kept in abeyance. Original petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 345 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not be taken as a condition precedent for payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act inasmuch as the State Government had exempted the sales tax in the said Government Order in respect of hides and skins-tanned as well as untanned under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal took the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 890 as the assessee had not paid any tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. It also appears that the Tribunal was under the impression that the benefit of both the Government Orders cannot be availed at the same time. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal itself took a different view later referred to above. 6.. For the above reasons, we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal. The order under revision is accordingly set aside. The tax revision case is allowed, but having regard to the circumstances of the case, without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 344 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellate authority nor the Tribunal did consider whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not producing the particular document before the assessing authority. The appellate authority proceeded on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to receive the document and grant relief on that basis. This would certainly give rise to a question of law, namely, whether the appellate authority committed an error of law in not considering whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not producing the proper document before the assessing officer and whether the appellate authority committed an error of law in not accepting the document and granting concessional rate of sales tax under section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 4.. We dispose of the application directing the Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) to state the case and make the reference to the High Court of the question or questions of law arising in the case. No costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 343 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nction is well-known and well-accepted. 8.. In view of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the electric motors, pumps and pump sets sold by the assessee cannot be termed as electrical instruments, apparatus and appliances falling under entry 44(b) of Part II of Schedule C to the Act. That being so, they would fall under entry 102 of Part II of Schedule C to the Act and sales thereof would be taxable at the rate specified therein. 9.. For the reasons set out above, we hold that the pumps coupled with electric motors and mono block pump sets, sold by the assessee, are covered by entry 102 of Part II of Schedule C to the Act and not by entry 18(i) of Part I of Schedule C or entry 44(b) of Part II of Schedule C to the Act. 10.. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the above terms in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11.. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 342 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as in force. The point is covered by a judgment of this Court in M. Radhakrishna Murthy and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1989 75 STC 426. It was held therein that entry 36, as it stood then, did not include tilakam and kajal and that those goods were taxable as general goods. Following that judgment, we set aside the order under revision as the Tribunal held that tilakam and kajal fall under entry 36. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 341 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ng the permit. From these facts we are satisfied that the applicant had not the required intention to evade tax payable under the Act of 1954. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the amount of penalty which has already been reduced to Rs. 30,000, should be further reduced having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above. Hence the application is allowed. The amount of penalty is reduced to Rs. 15,000. Respondent No. 2, CTO/Baxirhat check-post is directed to refund the amount of penalty which will be in excess of Rs. 15,000, to the applicant within a period of three weeks from today. It is further directed that the sum of Rs. 33,000 which was deposited by the applicant as advance tax for obtaining the permit should be adjusted against assessment of the applicant for the relevant period, when such assessment is made by respondent No. 3, C.T.O./Darjeeling Charge. The application is, thus, disposed of without any order for costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 340 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tsoever for the contention of the assessee that man-made fabric in entry 12 of Schedule A to the Act includes glass fabric . Glass fabric , therefore, cannot be regarded as man-made fabrics falling under entry 12 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 4.. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that on true interpretation of entry 12 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act read with item 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the fibre glass fabrics and fibre glass sleeving did not fall under entry 12 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act (as in force since July 1, 1981). These items would therefore fall under the residuary entry 102 of Part II of Schedule C to the Act. 5.. In the premises, the above question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. 6.. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
