|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 320 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 362 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to say that the action of the respondent in not refunding the tax is illegal and arbitrary. We are also unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order under section 33-C of the Act should be passed within two months within which time the assessing authority under rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 is bound to give effect to the order. We are, however, of the view that rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 is only recommendatory and not mandatory and that once an order under section 33-C is made no refund can be granted thereafter whether within two months or beyond. Though the order of the appellate authority or any other authority directing refund of tax, in the absence of an order under section 33-C, should be implemented within two months of its communication, yet any refund made beyond two months cannot be said to be an illegal exercise of power. It is desirable that power under
-
1996 (12) TMI 361 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 7, is the result of misreading of the agreement by the Tribunal. The contention appears to be somewhat misconceived. We have gone through the agreements and we find that the risk clause is there in the said agreements which are the subject-matter of T.R.C. Nos. 138 and 139 of 1989. 22.. From the reading of the clauses referred to above, we are of the view that the terms of the agreement in question are analogous to made to measure category where the material is supplied by the owner and the vessel/ferry is manufactured by the petitioner and that the transactions, subject-matter of the contracts, are sale but not a works contract . 23.. For the above reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal to warrant our interference in the revisions. We, therefore, affirm the orders of the Tribunal. 24.. In the result, the tax revision cases are dismissed but, in the circumstance of the case, we leave it to the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 360 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 73 which provides for remedies of appeals, etc., is a part of the scheme of the Act. Therefore, the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under that section is an effective alternative remedy and there is no reason for us to overlook the settled principle of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution when effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner may be required to deposit the amount of tax before the appeal is entertained cannot be a ground for ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1983 53 STC 315 AIR 1983 SC 603 and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330. 5.. For the reason mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the petitioner shall be free to avail the remedy of appeal. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the category of spices under entry 179 of the First Schedule with retrospective effect from April 1, 1984 by Ordinance No. 7 of 1989 which is replaced by Act 3 of 1990? 3.. Whether the respondent-assessee is not liable to be taxed under turnover of garlic in the assessment year 1985-86 in view of the amendment of entry 179 in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act brought in by Ordinance No. 7 of 1989 which is replaced by Act 3 of 1990? 4.. Whether the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal are correct in law? In the view which we have taken in the writ appeals, we would answer the questions in the following manner (a) Question Nos. 1 and 4 are answered in the affirmative against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. (b) Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the negative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 33.. The tax revision cases are disposed of accordingly. 34.. Order on C.M.P. No. 3120 of 1991 in W.A. No. 195 of 1991 dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 358 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... son in the absence of an authority from him. 7.. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Penalty proceedings under the Act are quasi-criminal in nature. It is stated in the survey report that stock register disclosed that for September 2, 1986, entry was started in it and, thereafter, no entry was made in it. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to when excess 69 bags of mustard and 47 tins of oil was received by the dealer. It could have been received on September 2, 1986 itself. The provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder did not require that an entry in the account book was to synchronize with the transaction or with the transfer of goods. It was quite probable that these goods might have been received on September 2, 1986 itself. 8.. We do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. The application for revision deserves to be dismissed. 9.. Accordingly, the application for revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 357 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of the tax only........ (Emphasis added). 13.. This ruling applies with full force to the case in hand. The ruling of the Gauhati High Court in Bhauram Jodhraj and Co. v. State of Assam 1989 75 STC 23, is also to the same effect. 14.. The orders of the assessing authority dated May 13, 1986 must therefore necessarily be taken to be under section 11B read with section 17, RST Act. Sub-section (5) of section 17, RST Act provides that no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the date of the order sought to be amended . In the present case the orders which the orders in question of May 13, 1986 seek to amend are of September 22, 1980. The orders in question are clearly hit by limitation. 15.. There is therefore no force in these applications of revision which are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. This judgment in original be kept on file No. 38 of 1992 with a certified copy being kept on file No. 55 of 1992. Applications dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 356 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... riod of limitation of four years. The order of the assessing authority of October 26, 1983 was therefore barred by time as well. This aspect of the matter has been raised in the application for revision. It is contended that the order of October 26, 1983 cannot be treated as an order under section 17, RST Act that it was merely an order of computation and liability to pay interest was automatic and the interest was recoverable from the assessee irrespective of any order of the assessing authority. 6. Similar questions of law had arisen before this Tribunal in C.T.O. v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Revision No. 38 of 1992 (R.T.T. No. 555 of 1996) decided on December 16, 1996 and this Tribunal following the Rajasthan High Court in C.T.O. v. Dy. Chief Commercial Superintendent 1992 11 RTJS 121 had taken the same view as the Board in the instant case. 7.. In view of the above there is no force in the application for revision which is dismissed. 8.. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 355 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng Rs. 50,000, the said offer was accepted by the department by passing an order fixing the compound fee at Rs. 50,000 and the petitioner has paid the said amount also without demur. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to canvass the said proceedings by raising a contention that he has not agreed for the amount fixed in the order or that notwithstanding the fact that he has agreed to pay the said amount the officer was duty bound to consider the claim independently and to fix the amount commensurate with the offence alleged. This is not the scheme of section 47. The aforesaid view taken by me is supported by the decisions of this Court in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala 1995 96 STC 21 1994 2 KLT 222 and in Sree Sastha Trading Co. v. State of Kerala 1991 2 KLT 875. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 354 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... up the provisions of section 10(7) are to be construed independently. By setting aside the assessment order on technical ground, the petitioner s liability to pay the penalty does not come to an end. Earlier assessment order, annexure P-1, was not set aside on merits. Rather findings of all the authorities are that petitioner purchased goods worth Rs. 11,60,917.17 but it did not show in its account books and in its turnover. He thus concealed a vital information and tried to evade his liability under the Act for which the proceedings under section 10(7) of the Act could be initiated independently as the petitioner was liable to be assessed with regard to those concealment/purchases made from M/s. Hari Chand Narinder Kumar. The impugned orders, annexures P-2, P-5 and P-8, are totally justified and are in accordance with the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of any merit which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the entire process of the issuance of the notice under Section 28 involving consideration of the objections and passing of the final plan after consideration is required to be gone through?
Held that:- By operation of Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, where any land is included in any of scheme as being reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified therein or for the purpose of Planning Authority or Development Authority or Appropriate Authority and the State Government is satisfied that the same land is needed for a public purpose different from any such public purpose or purpose of the Planning Authority, Development Authority Appropriate Authority, the State Government may notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, l894. Sub-section (3) envisages that on the land vesting in the State Government under Section 16 or 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the case may be, the relevant plan or scheme shall be deemed to be suitably varied by reason of acquisition of the said land. Thus it could be seen that once a notification under section 4(1) was published and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to published, the public purpose becomes conclusive and for any variation without substantial formalities, it is not necessary that the entire process of re-publication of the notification under Section 28, finding having been recorded under both the Section 31 read with Section 37, requires to be followed. The view of the High Court, therefore, was not correct.
In the absence of notice or failure to serve notice, the award does not become invalid. Due to the fact that immediately after the award and before the publication of the award, the writ petition came to be filed on September 25, 1980, we direct the appellants to make an application within six weeks under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference. The land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the matter to the competent civil Court for disposal within two months according to law. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT
Infringement of public interests - Held that:- The Himachal Pradesh Government committed patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management. Both the lease transactions are in patent breach of the trust held by the State Government. The second lease granted in the year 1994 was virtually of the land which is a part of the riverbed. Even the Board in its report has recommended de-leasing of the said area.The public trust doctrine, as discussed by in this judgment is a part of the law of the land.
The prior approval granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest by the letter dated 24-11-1993 and the lease deed dated 11-4-1994 in favour of the Motel are quashed. The lease granted to the Motel by the said lease deed in respect of 27 bighas and 12 biswas of area, is cancelled and set aside. The Himachal Pradesh Government shall take over the area and restore it to its original-natural conditions.
The Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. The pollution caused by various constructions made by the Motel in the riverbed and the banks of River Beas has to be removed and reversed. We direct NEERI through its Director to inspect the area, if necessary, and give an assessment of the cost which is likely to be incurred for reversing the damage caused by the Motel to the environment and ecology of the area. NEERI may take into consideration the report by the Board in this respect.
The Motel through its management shall show cause why pollution fine in addition be not imposed on the Motel.
The Motel shall construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 metres from the cluster of rooms (main building of the Motel) towards the river basin. The boundary wall shall be on the area of the Motel which is covered by the lease dated 29-9-1981. The Motel shall not encroach/cover/utilise any part of the river basin. The boundary wall shall separate the Motel building from the river basin. The river bank and the river basin shall be left open for the public use.
The Motel shall not discharge untreated effluents into the river. We direct the Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board to inspect the pollution control devices/treatment plants set up by the Motel. If the effluent/waste discharged by the Motel is not conforming to the prescribed standards, action in accordance with law be taken against the Motel.
The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board shall not permit the discharge of untreated effluent into River Beas. The Board shall inspect all the hotels/institutions/factories in Kullu-Manali area and in the Board shall take action in accordance with law.
The Motel shall show cause on 18-12-1996 why pollution fine and damages be not imposed as directed by us. NEERI shall send its report by 17-12-1996. To be listed on 18-12-1996.
-
1996 (12) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT
Interest of the decree-holder - Held that:- Here the sale was conducted on 27.2.1984. The bidder who made his initial deposit of ₹ 25,000 did not pay the balance within the period of 15 days i.e. 13.3.1984. Instead the payment was made only on 9.11.1990 which was 6 years 6 months and 12 days after the sale. The excess advanced by the first respondent was that the amount could not be paid on account of pendency of the civil suit filed by the appellant. On the other hand appellant contends that first respondent did not make the payment as he too was pretty sure that the sale of 27.2.1984 stood cancelled by the operation of the conditions imposed by the courts, whatever is the excess the fact remains that first respondent did not pay the balance sale amount within 15 days of sale. The sale of 27.2.1984 would, therefore, stand annulled ipso jure without anything more.
Thus as sale was not validly made at all as the failure on the part of the purchaser in depositing the balance sale price within the time limits has rendered the sale a non-est.The conclusion is that first respondent did not legally acquire the interest of the decree-holder in the property. He is, therefore, not a transferee by operation of law as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code. His application for substitution is hence liable to be dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT
Whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India?
Held that:- It is now a well accepted proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The claim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the defence of sovereign immunity is nor available and the citizen must revive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrong doer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis has to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element.
The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is duty bound to do.
-
1996 (12) TMI 349 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mentioned decisions their Lordships 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 amendment made in the Haryana Act 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 respondents shall now recover the amount of tax alongwith interest from the petitioners.
-
1996 (12) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT
Review petition - Held that:- The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits, It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits.
Thus dismiss the Review Petition. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record.
-
1996 (12) TMI 346 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... y authority nor can we find any such authority whereby we could make such an order. We, however, find that these requests by the ld. Counsel arise out of the wrong presumption that there is no incremental duty payable at the time of clearance of the final goods. As we have observed above, the value of the unbranded tobacco is not 15 per cent of the branded tobacco, but is about 85 per cent after giving remission for 15 per cent from the value of the branded chewing tobacco on account of packing. Therefore, the quantum of duty payable at two stages cannot be the same. In other words, the duty payable on the branded chewing tobacco will always be higher than that paid on the unbranded tobacco. Therefore, the fear of Sh. Narasimhan that the duty paid on unbranded tobacco may never be set off, is not well founded. 18. emsp On the analysis above, we find no merit in the various contentions advanced by the appellants. We uphold the Commissioner rsquo s order and reject this appeal.
-
1996 (12) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Recalling of order ... ... ... ... ..... second time before us which we have dismissed on merits. It was contended by Shri Malik, DR that since the CEGAT had already passed an order, the present order has no validity and therefore not enforceable. Accordingly he requested that the Order No. 699/96 may be recalled and vacate the same as non-enforceable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Shri Vipin Nair also submitted that the latest order may be dismissed as infructuous in view of the earlier order of the Tribunal. We accept the plea of both the sides and accordingly Order No. 699/96-A, dated 11-1-1996 is dismissed as infructuous and the same is not enforceable in the eye of law. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (12) TMI 340 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Name of Company – Rectification of ... ... ... ... ..... a Land Investments Limited, Canara Wire and Wire Products Limited, though part of the Manipal group did not have Manipal as part of their corporate name. The Manipal group was the group of businesses of the Pais of Manipal and not the group of businesses with Manipal as part of their names. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are as much Pais of Manipal as are the members of the families of the Mohandas Pai group. Even as submitted by counsel for plaintiffs, on the division of a business which had acquired goodwill, each of the successor entities are entitled to share in that goodwill. The Mohandas Pai group as also the Ramesh Pai group each of which now controls some of the enterprises of the erstwhile Manipal group, may, if they choose to describe themselves as Manipal group . The plaintiffs have failed to show prima facie that Manipal group has acquired a secondary meaning as referring to and comprising exclusively the plaintiff companies. The applications for injunction are dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 339 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... of 1989 and 7 of 1989 are revived under their respective original numbers for fresh consideration of the question of admission. The learned company judge shall consider the aforesaid documents as also other documents, if filed in rebuttal, and shall hear both the sides on the question of admission and shall pass orders afresh in these two company petitions. These appeals are, thus, disposed of in terms of the directions, as noted above. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the company court on January 10, 1997, to take further orders in the matter. The intervenors, who have not appeared in this court, may also appear before the company court in Company Petition No. 6 of 1989 on this date. We make no orders as to costs. Records be returned along with the aforesaid applications and documents annexed thereto. Retain this order in the record of Company Appeal No. 3 of 1990 and place its copy in the record of Company Appeal No. 7 of 1990 for ready reference.
-
1996 (12) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the exemption notification must be read as a whole & therefore, if find the exemption notification to be violative of article 304(a) the entire exemption notification will have to be struck down and not just a portion of it which is discriminatory as contended by the appellants.
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the present case the exemption notification as it originally stood exempted all re-rolled finished products sold in the State of Andhra Pradesh from tax provided tax had been paid in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the raw material. This exemption is still available to re-rolled products which are manufactured within the State. No exception can be taken to this part of the notification. Only the portion of exemption notification which discriminates against goods manufactured outside the State violates the provisions of article 304(a). In fact the words denying this exemption to goods manufactured outside the State were expressly and specifically added to the original exemption notification by the amending G.O. Ms. No. 1373 of 28th August, 1981.
It is this amendment alone, which is clearly severable, that offends article 304(a). It can, therefore, be struck down. The subsequent notification of 20th March, 1984 proceeds on the same basis. There is no need, therefore, to strike down the entire tax exemption which is granted to all re-rolled steel products sold in the State of Andhra Pradesh and manufactured out of tax-paid raw material purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The discriminatory provision is clearly severable and can be struck down.
........
|
