|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 320 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 382 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are left to bear their own costs. Writ petitions allowed. Appendix The judgment of the division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court consisting of S.S. SODHI and N.K. SODHI, JJ., in ARYA GRAM UDYOG BHATHA SANGH (TRUST) v. STATE OF HARYANA (Civil Writ Petition No. 10311 of 1993 decided on 25th November, 1993) is printed below ARYA GRAM UDYOG BHATHA SANGH (TRUST) v. STATE OF HARYANA Order The challenge here is to the notification of the Haryana Government issued on April 22, 1993 (annexure P-4) to be precise to the retrospective effect thereof. On the face of it such a notification can only be prospective in its effect and operation. There is thus patent legal infirmity in its retrospective effect. We, consequently, hold the notification to be invalid with regard to the retrospective effect thereof and hold that it shall be operative prospectively only, i.e., with effect from the date of its issuance, namely, April 22, 1993. This writ petition is allowed in these terms.
-
1996 (12) TMI 381 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... sult, the application is allowed. The impugned notice at annexure C bearing Memo No. 674CT/S.C. dated June 13, 1996 proposing cancellation of E.C. already granted to the applicant is quashed. If any order was passed by respondent No. 1 on the basis of the said notice, that also stands quashed. The interim order stands vacated. The main application is thus disposed of without any order for costs. After the judgment is delivered Mr. K.K. Saha, learned advocate for the respondents, prays for stay of operation of the judgment and order for 12 weeks. Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the applicant opposes the prayer on the ground that the present judgment follows decision of the Supreme Court of India and several other judgments of this Tribunal. Having considered the submissions of both sides, the prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and order is rejected. P.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member).-I agree. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d is dispensed with. 5.. All these matters are disposed of in terms of the opinion rendered y the Full Bench in T.C. (R) Nos. 474 to 478 of 1993 and W.P. Nos. 15530 and 15531 of 1995 on July 24, 1996 Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 105 STC 497 (Mad.) . Further, we modify the assessment orders wherever there is penalty levied under section 12(3) or section 12(5)(iii) or section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the penalty levied there shall be reduced to 50 per cent of the tax assessed. In Writ Appeal Nos. 443 to 447 of 1994, the order of the learned single Judge shall stand modified in terms of the order passed above. We also permit the appellants to withdraw the appeals preferred by them before the appellate authorities. No costs. 6.. W.M.P. Nos. 29863 and 29865 of 1992 and C.M.P. Nos. 4543 to 4547 and 7623 to 7627 of 1994 are dismissed. Interim orders already passed are dissolved. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (12) TMI 379 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he products developed into post-larvae stage. The contention of the appellants is that the prawns sold by them are infant prawns or juvenile prawns as they were of the age of twenty days that such prawns nevertheless are to be considered as prawns falling under entry 19 which makes no difference between such juvenile prawns and adult or grown up prawns and that therefore such prawns sold by them cannot be considered as general goods even though they were sold as prawn seeds. 3.. Having regard to the finding of fact recorded by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that what was sold was not larvae but twenty-day-old prawns, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the products sold by the assessee should be construed as larvae cannot be accepted. No question of law arises out of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for our consideration. Therefore, the tax revision case fails and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 378 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... r distilled nor aerated. In the reply, nothing has been said in respect of these averments. It means that contents of these paras are admitted by the non-petitioner. It is clear from these averments that mineral water is nothing but water. As such it was not exigible to tax. The assessing authority has no jurisdiction to issue notice and to pass assessment order levying tax on its sale. In his order dated December 1, 1994 passed under section 12A of the Act, the Additional Commissioner has held that mineral water and aerated water are one and the same thing and, therefore, mineral water is not exempted from tax. Both these applications deserves to be allowed. 8.. Accordingly, the applications moved under section 8(1), Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 are allowed. Mineral water is held to be not taxable till September 30, 1995. The show cause notice and the assessment order imposing tax on the sale of mineral water are quashed. No order as to costs. Applications allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 377 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... asthan Sales Tax Board seriously erred to entertain the appeal against the said order dated November 7, 1986 of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration). The view taken in Shakti Soap and Chemicals, Jaipur v. Deputy Commissioner (1989) 6 RTJS 22, is correct. 6.. According to the said notification dated May 19, 1972, the concerned Commercial Taxes Officer was empowered to grant the exemption certificate after obtaining previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration). The Deputy Commissioner (Administration) himself has not been empowered by it to pass the order. 7.. Accordingly, the application for revision is allowed. The order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated November 24, 1987 is set aside. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B , Alwar (petitioner) will himself decide the application of the dealer-respondent dated October 23, 1986 in accordance with the said Notification No. F. 5(24)FDCT/72-15 dated May 19, 1972. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 376 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court cited above, if the purchaser had not utilised the goods for the purpose of declaration in the certificate, it is not for the tax officer in the State, where the assessee was brought to tax, to conduct an enquiry. The tax authorities in the State of Maharashtra may if they choose, conduct an enquiry under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for imposing penalty on the purchasers which can be quantified with reference to the tax which would otherwise have been imposable. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee says that in the State of Maharashtra the definition of the word sale has been enlarged so as to comprehend leases also. It is doubtful whether there was any misuse of the C forms even if there was any misuse, it is not for the tax authorities in this State to conduct an enquiry as per the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra. In the circumstances, the tax revision case fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s within time. Even otherwise, in view of the confusion prevailing in the minds of the dealer and the assessing officer, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Such trifles should not come in the way of doing justice to a dealer. Therefore, the Tribunal s order dismissing the dealer s appeals is not legally sustainable. The revision petitions are allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order dated October 7, 1996, it is ordered that the revisionist s appeals before the Tribunal stand allowed and the Deputy Commissioner s order dismissing the assessee s appeals as barred by time is set aside. The said appeals are held to be within the time prescribed by law. In the circumstances of the case, it would be open to the assessing officer to correct the name of the assessee in the assessment orders and the revisionist may also apply to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for amendment of the memorandum of appeal by correctly describing it present name. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nner occurring in section 3-G, simply denotes the mode in which an act was to be done. If any time-limit has to be prescribed for doing of the act, we are of the view that specific words such as the time within which were also necessary to be put in the statute. 11.. For the reasons, we hold that rule 12-C(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 (now, the Trade Tax Rules ) is ultra vires section 3-G, as it stood at the relevant time, in so far as it prescribes a time-limit to file form III-D. 12.. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that an appeal was filed against the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 1976-77, which has been decided. 13.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The appellate authority is directed to consider form III-D filed before the assessing authority by the petitioner on various dates without rejecting them on the ground of limitation and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 373 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clearly held that the blending process carried on by the petitioner was not in the nature of manufacture, it was not kept open to the assessing authority to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and the duty of the assessing authority was to complete the assessment pursuant to the remand order following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the blending process carried on by the petitioner, was not in the nature of manufacture of the tea. 11.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 13th February, 1995 passed by the assessing authority (annexure 4 to the writ petition) is quashed to the extent the assessing authority held contrary to the Tribunal s order that the blending process carried on by the petitioner, tantamounted to manufacture. The case is remanded to the assessing authority with the direction that the assessment order will be made afresh keeping in view the above observations. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 372 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 8(3)(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court significantly noticed the vital difference between an agricultural operation and a manufacturing process. Ultimately the apex Court said Cultivation and growth of tea-plants and leaves cannot be comprehended in the expression in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale . Although cultivation and growth of tea-plants results in the production of raw materials in the form of green tea-leaves which are ultimately processed into tea meant for sale, such cultivation and growth are in the very nature of things prior to the manufacturing process and do not answer to the description of manufacture and processing of tea meant for sale. The above observation squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 7.. The conclusion therefore, is that the orders passed by the authorities below are valid and legal. No grounds for interference are made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 371 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The question is one as to the nature of the duties required to be discharged and the services required to be rendered by the Port Trust. In none of the duties discharged and services rendered by the Port Trust, there is an element of trade or business. Therefore, we are of the view that as the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act stand today or stood on the date when the notice was issued to the Port Trust, the Port Trust cannot be directed to be registered as a dealer . If that be so, it cannot be held that it is bound to furnish the details of auction sales held, for the purpose of making a demand. 13.. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated March 30, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5509 of 1994 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The notice dated February 8, 1994 issued by the second respondent is quashed. No costs. 14.. C.M.P. No. 11409 of 1994 is dismissed. Writ appeal allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 370 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o unreasonable restrictions within the meaning of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 30.. In view of the above, I, therefore, hold that the provisions contained in section 27 of the Act so far making obligation on the public companies to deduct tax at source and deposit it to Government in the manner prescribed is not violative of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but it is violative of equality clause of article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, there is no reasonable classification between private companies or HUF or individual and the public companies . Therefore, this provision so far it relates to public companies is ultra vires on the ground of violative of article 14 and accordingly, the said provision contained in section 27 of the Act is struck down and quashed. 31. With the above observation the petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 369 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ime, copy may not have been supplied to the petitioner. We direct respondent No. 2 to supply a copy of the order passed by him levying penalty, forthwith. Till the copy of the order is supplied to the petitioner, encashment of the bank guarantee is stayed. It shall be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies provided under the Act against the order passed by the Assessing Authority. 6.. Since this Court has already dismissed the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner-company on the same cause of action, the present writ petition does not lie. The writ petitioner, through his counsel, has not chosen to make a reference to the earlier writ petition and that is not appropriate. It was the duty on the part of the petitioner-company as well as his learned counsel to have disclosed that, earlier, a writ petition was filed in the same matter. Such a practice has to be disapproved and condemned. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 368 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... rketed by large scale or medium scale industries up to the value of Rs. 20. 3.. The short question is whether the exemption can be said to exempt the goods in question from tax generally so as to exempt their inter-State sales from tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) in terms of section 8(2-A), CST Act? The assessing authority and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that it did not. The Board by its impugned order held otherwise. 4.. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.. This Tribunal has already held in Bumpy Udyog, Alwar v. Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti-Evasion) 1997 106 STC 105 (RTT) that the exemption granted to the goods in question from tax under the RST Act is not an exemption from tax generally so as to exempt their inter-State sales from tax under the CST Act in terms of section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. The application for revision is accepted and the impugned order of the Board is set aside. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 367 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... xpedient to discuss the matter in detail. Under the law, as then stood, there was no column for the name of the opposite party in the prescribed pro forma, form S.T. 9 for an application for revision. Section 14 of the Act contained the provisions for revision. It simply provided that the Board of Revenue may on being moved by any officer authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner call for the record of any proceedings and examine it. Sub-section (6) provided that no order under this section be passed without giving the dealer as also the Commissioner or the officer authorised by him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Nonimpleadment of a dealer was thus not fatal. It was simply necessary to hear him before passing an order under section 14 of the Act. Notice could be given to him at any stage prior to passing an order. 6.. Accordingly, the question Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are answered in the negative and the question No. 3 in the affirmative. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1996 (12) TMI 366 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... is deposited as held by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) why go through the rigmarole of depositing only to refund? The finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse. 11.2. The other aspect of the matter in the instant case is that the entitlement to refund as part of the discount scheme is not that of the assessee but that of the assessee s dealers as a necessary concomitant of the discount. The assessee s dealers can invoke section 23-B, RST Act in terms of the section s first proviso, if at all, only after the amount is deposited with the Government, i.e., after the credit notes are invoked and the amount deposited. That however would do violence to the definition of sale price already referred to inasmuch as it would tax the element of discount which the AA rightly held was not permissible. 12.. As such the Board determined the matter correctly and the application for revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 365 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is included in the return of turnover filed by such sub-contractor are struck down. (5) Section 5G is valid. (6) Section 5H is also valid subject to the Government instructing the assessing officers to make provisional assessments and to intimate the authorities required to deduct the tax at source. (7) The amended Rule 6(2) is valid after omitting the words and that turnover is included in the return filed by him before the assessing authority concerned in sub-rule (b) and the words provided that the goods are transferred in the same form as they were purchased in sub-rule (i), (j) and (k) thereof. (8) Rule 6(3)(i) shall be read as applicable only to the value of goods supplied or used in works contracts during the year. (9) Rule 6(3)(ii) prescribing percentage of deduction for different kinds of contracts for estimating value of goods supplied, where it cannot be ascertained, is valid. 47.. All the writ petitions are partly allowed. No costs. Writ petitions partly allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 364 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2(h) of the APGST Act. 43.. Having regard to the conclusion reached by us, it is not necessary to consider whether the definition of goods in section 2(h) of the APGST Act has to be read down so as to exclude software from it. In any event the question of reading down a provision will arise only when the provision is found to be unconstitutional by the court, to save it from being struck down on the ground of unconstitutionality the doctrine of reading down will be invoked. In this case the circumstances do not warrant invoking of the said doctrine. 44.. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition and no illegality in the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal Nos. 415, 416, 417 and 418 of 1995 dated April 1, 1996, which is the subject-matter of the T.R.Cs. Writ Petition No. 22375 of 1994 and Tax Revision Case Nos. 96 to 99 of 1996 are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 363 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hips considered a provision parallel to section 32 of the State Act and, therefore, the principles laid down in those cases while interpreting the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and Income-tax Act, 1961 do not have any bearing on the interpretation of sections 31 and 32 of the Act nor can they be read as curtailing the scope of amended section 9 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the impugned orders cannot be quashed on the ground that they are barred by limitation. 39.. Before concluding, we may mention that although the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendments made in the Haryana Act but no argument was advanced on that point during the course of hearing. 40.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 (each petition). The interim orders passed by this Court automatically stand vacated and the respondents shall now recover the amount of tax along with interest from the petitioners. Petition dismissed.
........
|
