|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 400 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 449 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r circumstantial evidence it is very hard to presume that the appellant had indulged in any clandestine transactions. There is no case of any pattern of suppression. Although the Tribunal has observed all these in the matter of reducing the estimated addition, in our judgment all the above features directly penetrate for the purpose of consideration of the merits. For all the above reasons both the revisions succeed. The orders passed by the authorities are quashed and set aside. The result is that the reopening which is the subject-matter of T.R.C. No. 61 of 1994 gets quashed and set aside and orders as a result of resort to estimation and best judgment, the subject-matter of T.R.C. No. 21 of 1994 also get quashed and set aside and the assessing authority is directed to proceed with the assessment on the basis of form 8 return filed by the assessee declaring a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 9,32,13,732.11 and finalise the assessment on the above basis. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 448 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... on 3. When there is a violation, the balance of 2 per cent tax is payable and that is collected from the purchaser who violated the declaration. But for such a declaration, tax would have been collected from the registered dealer at the point of first sale by them to the petitioner. Therefore by no stretch of imagination the value of goods of Rs. 22,65,828 which went into the manufacture of end-products but were stock transferred in violation of declaration can be included as the taxable turnover of the petitioner attracting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970. Since the petition is filed at the time of show cause notice, the petitioners are granted time till 30th January, 1997 to file their objections in respect of other issues. 11.. And the Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 12.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on 10th October, 1996.
-
1996 (10) TMI 447 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity and not used in the manufacture of the commodity. It is, thus, clear that the goods such as plant and machinery, employed for manufacture are the main goods and goods which are used in the manufacture are appropriately the incidental goods. In the instant cases, the goods like plant and machinery are main goods for manufacture, etc., and cannot be classed as incidental goods and as such, the Tribunal reached the correct conclusion and committed no error of law. 26.. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in both the cases in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the non-applicant/assessee and against the applicant/revenue. 27.. These Misc. Civil Cases are, thus, disposed of with answer as above, but without any orders as to costs. 28.. Record of the Tribunal be returned immediately. 29.. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 179 of 1989 and place its copy in connected Misc. Civil Case No. 120 of 1990 for ready reference. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 446 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ules and the notification had not ceased simply because he was a member of the Intelligence Branch. As shown above, the Bureau of Investigation (commonly called as the Intelligence Branch) was intended to facilitate and not to frustrate the realisation of the aims and objects of the Act. 15.. For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the dealer and I am further of the opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in accepting the dealer s submission in so far as the period April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981 was concerned. However, any dispute regarding this period is not before us in this reference and hence I do not wish to pass any order in that regard. 16.. In the result, I answer the reference in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the dealer. 17.. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. N.N. SINGH, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1996 (10) TMI 445 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... der the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in terms of section 8(2-A) of that Act (ii) the liability to pay interest shall be from the date by which the tax was required to be paid by or under provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (iii) the applicant be allowed 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to furnish declarations in form C before the assessing authority concerned with respect to the inter-State sales in question of footwear as described in (i) above and on his doing so the petitioner shall be permitted to avail of the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at 4 per cent and the quantum of interest shall be recalculated accordingly. 25.. The applications for revision stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. This judgment in original be kept on the file of Revision No. 217 of 1996 and an attested true copy be kept on the file of Revision No. 341 of 1996. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 444 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o till the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court of India, provided that the account books seized by the respondents are returned back to the petitioner, in accordance with law. Consequently, it is directed that the petitioner would maintain separate account in this regard so that in the ultimate success of the State in the Supreme Court, it shall not be difficult to recover whole of the amount. The account books seized by the respondent-State would be returned back to the petitioner within a reasonable time, in accordance with law. In the light of the order passed in the case of Swastik Roadways 1996 103 STC 106 (MP), this petition stands allowed. The amount recovered from the petitioner under section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, towards penalty would be refunded back to the petitioner within a reasonable time by the respondents. 2.. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of finally, but with no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 443 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ced by us on the expression manufacture it is necessary to rely upon clause (xviii) of rule 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, which reads Here italicised. 3. Processes not included in manufacture .-For the purposes of clause (17) of section 2 manufacture shall not include the following manufactures and manufacturing processes, namely,........ (xviii) Subjecting the goods specified in any entry in Schedule B to any process or doing anything to them, which does not take them out of the description thereof in that entry. The above rule merely supports the well recognised interpretation of the expression manufacture . In effect, this clause is merely clarificatory in nature. 15.. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 16.. This reference is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 442 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... prints, mechanical process was used or that the additional prints were to be used by the customers for advertising their products, in our opinion, is not relevant in determining nature of the transaction which, in the instant case, is obviously works contract. 16.. In view of the above, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the supply of additional prints by the assessee to their customers from the negatives supplied by them was not a contract for sale but was a contract for work, labour and skill. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above answer to question No. 1, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that it is not necessary to answer the questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are therefore returned unanswered. 17.. This reference is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1996 (10) TMI 441 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the course of arguments an oral plea was made by the learned counsel for the respondent-dealer that in one of the cases the C forms submitted by the dealer was not accepted by the assessing authority as it covered more than one transaction which should be accepted and cited Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali v. Kanhayalal Mohanlal 1987 64 STC 449 (Raj) in support in which it was held that in the case of form ST-17 under the RST Act/Rules the furnishing of a single declaration form for more than one transaction was only a technical default and could be overlooked. The forms in question are not before us and nor can adequate details be discerned from the orders of the lower authorities for this Tribunal to take a view in the matter. The assessing authority is directed to look into this aspect of the matter and to determine it in accordance with the law. 13.. The applications for revision are accepted subject to the observations in para 11. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 440 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase admittedly, the said constitutional requirement was not complied with, therefore, it is declared that the deletion of section 28 of the Act by Karnataka Act 1 of 1996 is not enforceable. Consequently, it follows that the rights and obligations of the petitioners will still be governed by the law as declared by this Court in the case of Arun Manikchand Shah (1995) 45 ILR Kar 3080, wherein in penultimate paragraph 26 thereof it has been held that 26. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with a declaration that only such petitioners will be liable to pay entry tax on motor vehicles brought by them into the respective local areas who are dealers within the meaning of clause (4) of section 2 of the present Act. Consequently, persons not falling in that category will be exempt from payment of entry tax in terms of section 28 of the Act. 11.. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the said extent. Anyhow there will be no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 439 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g regard to the wide language of the said entry, in our view stencil paper falls within entry 143. On a comparison of this entry with the item at serial No. 7-A of the notification in State of Orissa v. Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. 1974 33 STC 333 (Orissa), it can immediately be noticed that the item under the Orissa notification was very truncated. That is why, stencil paper was held not to be falling within that item. 6.. The same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Kores (India) Limited (1989) 9 APSTJ 229, wherein it was held as follows .........Having regard to the wide language of entry 143 gives to the word paper it is not possible for us to say that stencil paper can be taxed under entry 12. 7.. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. Observation of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in Vithal Chhagan and Sons v. State of Gujarat 1966 17 STC 96 (Guj.).
-
1996 (10) TMI 438 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... A case of overvaluation has to be distinguished from one of adulteration. It is not a case of discrepancy in price but in the description of the goods. The fact that tax-paid til oil might have been adulterated with tax-paid mustard oil or vice versa does not mean that there would be no evasion if the end-product was being passed off as til oil. The end-product could not be passed off as mustard oil for that would not make economic sense, i.e., there would no unfair advantage, i.e., no tax saved . 10.. In these circumstances a lenient view cannot be taken of the fact that the goods were not covered by the documents and the imposition of penalty under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act was clearly warranted. 11.. In view of the above the application for revision is accepted. The impugned orders of the Board dated February 10, 1995 and the order of D.C. (Appeals) dated March 30, 1990 are set aside and the order dated August 9, 1989 of the petitioner is restored. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 437 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... rom the court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Law is not meant for the benefit of tax-evaders. He has also placed reliance upon Rajdhani Express and Transport Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1995 18 RTJS 17, wherein it has been held by his Lordship Shri N.K. Jain that the departmental officials have the power and authority to inspect and examine the documents at any time to see the genuineness of such documents so as to ensure that there is no avoidance or evasion of tax. Both these decisions provide great support to the case of the department. 19.. To sum up, we uphold the order dated May 25, 1996 of the Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Alwar, dismiss the applications with costs which we quantify at Rs. 5,000 in each case and order that all the applicants including M/s. Diamond Transport Service, Delhi, would be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amounts of penalty levied vide the impugned order dated May 25, 1996. Applications dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 436 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 6, quoted in para No. 8 supra, it can well be said that the petitioner actually carried on the business under the name and style of M/s. Adinath and Sons, Sangariya as an unregistered dealer as his case is that the applications annexure 4 and 5 were moved by Sagar Singh for obtaining registration certificates. 12.. Under the facts and circumstances, it can well be said that if a relief is granted under section 8 of the Act to a person like the petitioner, it will simply bring disrepute to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. The Application deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. 13.. Accordingly, the application moved under section 8(1), RTT Act, 1995 is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000. This amount of costs will be deposited by the petitioner in the Tribunal within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order through an account payee demand draft in favour of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the respondent which is Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. from the aforesaid letter of the Indian Overseas Branch, we find that the cheque was presented on 15.10.1994 (in clearing). The lawyer s notice to the respondent being of 4th October, which had been replied on 12th from Cochi, which is the place of the respondent, whereas the Advocate who issued notice on behalf of the appellant was at Thrissur, it would seem to us that the first cheque had even been presented after the instruction of stop payment issued by the appellant had become known to the respondent. 6. The aforesaid being the position, we are satisfied that no case under Section 138 of the Act has been made out and we, therefore, quash the complaint. We may make it clear that we have not addressed ourselves on the question whether the respondent was in fact entitled to receive any amount from the appellant. 7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 434 - SUPREME COURT
Adjudication - Customs - Auction sale proceeds of the goods - Bank Frauds in issuing Letter of Credit
-
1996 (10) TMI 433 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... eme Court in the case relied upon by applicant is not parallel to the facts of the present case. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court considered the fact that appellants were agriculturist living in villages and were also young, and on these facts condoned the delay. In the present case the appellants were importers and running the business of import and cannot be equated with the agriculturist living in villages. The contention of the appellant that the appeal papers were misplaced in the office of the Advocate also does not support their case. The appellant handed over the appeal papers to their Counsel on 11-10-92 and the papers were lost thereafter. The Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order noticed that adjudication order was despatched by registered post on 10-7-89. This finding of the Commissioner is arrived at after verifying from the record maintained in the office. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 432 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Smuggling - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... prosecution in criminal case. The criminal proceedings and departmental adjudication are based on different principle. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in case Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) held that ldquo the statement made before the Customs officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner. rdquo 14. emsp In the present case, the co-noticee in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act implicated themselves and also the appellant. There is no ill-will or enmity of the appellant with co-noticee. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... The stand of the appellant is that they have not received goods for reprocessing but received goods for reducing, thickness. There are some letter on record from the consignees with the request to reduce the thickness as verbally discussed. It is further mentioned in the letters that thickness be reduced after decoiling of coil. All the letters are similarly worded. There is no mention of rates or conditions of payment for the job work. 5. emsp The appellant took the credit on the basis of documents sent by the consignees with goods in RG 23A Part II, but had not entered the goods received as inputs in the RG 23A Part I and in the raw material register i.e. Form IV. The appellants also not produced any evidence that the consignees had made payment for further reduction. Hence we do not find any infirmity in finding arrived at by the lower authorities that the appellant is not entitled for Modvat credit on the goods received by them for re-processing. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Court - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... at the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, do not envisage any such petition and what petition lie, are specified. Petitions provided under the Rules are exhaustive. I am unable to agree with this submission as well. As already stated, when sub-section (4) of section 209 of the Act envisages conferment of right of inspection on the director, then the director can seek a remedy by moving a petition to this court. Thus, I hold that the petition is maintainable under section 209(4) of the Act and the company is under an obligation to allow inspection to the petitioner of all the books of account and other books and papers. (p. 808) 12. We are unable to concur with the view taken as a whole. There may be other remedies available to enforce the right, but the remedy is not available in the High Court since the Companies Act does not stipulate as such. 13. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. The order of stay granted in this appeal on 9-9-1996 is vacated.
........
|
