|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 426 Records
-
1997 (11) TMI 506 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctivities relating to cleaning and tanka are covered by the expression of processing, as such, the same iq taxable. 6.. The Tribunal has held in its order that the work of cleaning and tanka comes within the definition of manufacture as envisaged under section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. 1 have carefully considered the submission and the materials on record and find no substance in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue as cleaning or using tanka shall not change the character and the nature of the article, it will remain the same article. The work of cleaning and putting tanka on the old ornaments does not come within the meaning of section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, as such revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated February 3, 19.93 and other consequential orders passed by the authorities concerned are hereby quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 505 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ccrued. Nothing prevented the applicant from depositing the sales tax on the sales of REP licence. Hence, in our opinion, the applicant is liable to pay interest on the sales proceeds of the REP licences from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court, i.e., from May 1, 1996. 8.. Be it mentioned that Shri Chakraborty has not disputed the validity of imposition of a token penalty of Rs. 100. 9.. In view of the discussions above we hold that the assessment of tax on the applicant on the sale of REP licence for the period of 4 quarters ending on March 31, 1994 is valid. We further declare that the applicant is liable to pay interest on the tax on the aforesaid account only from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation 1996 102 STC 106. The assessment order so far as the calculation of interest is concerned shall be modified by the assessing authority accordingly. We make no order as to costs. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree.
-
1997 (11) TMI 504 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tice, the case has to be remitted back to the assessing officer to have a fresh look into the matter in the light of what we have observed above. We, therefore, set aside the orders of all the authorities below, inclusive of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the assessing officer to consider the matter afresh, as we have indicated above. 11.. Before parting with this matter, we desire to pen down here the able assistance rendered by Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel. We procured the amicus curiae assistance of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, as suggested by Mr. D. Trilokchand Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-a fine and appreciable gesture indeed, emerging from such a Senior Counsel. The assistance from the said Senior Counsel was accordingly sought and procured and we are greatly indebted to the assistance so rendered by the said learned Senior Counsel. 12.. The revision is thus disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (11) TMI 503 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ate for the applicant has drawn our attention to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1970 25 STC 211. The observations made by the Supreme Court in this case has been oft-quoted and provides the guiding principles in the matter of imposition of penalty under the taxing statutes. The decision is so well-known that mere a reference to this case would be enough, without quoting the relevant part of the observation of the Supreme Court. 5.. Considering the circumstances in which such importation has been made by the applicant we consider that a penalty of Rs. 30,000 will meet the ends of justice. 6.. The application is, therefore, allowed in part. The amount of penalty imposed by the C.T.O., Chichira Check-post is hereby reduced to Rs. 30,000. The impugned orders of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stand modified accordingly. We make no order as to costs. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 502 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ther TNGSTA or CSTA. 11.. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we are unable to discern any discussion on any of the contentions of the respective parties and the Tribunal simply adopted a via media approach, as stated above. We are unable to understand as to how it will be permissible for the Tribunal to adopt such an approach, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. There is no other go for the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, except to answer the legal contentions raised on either side. Since those contentions had not been discussed and considered and a finding had been recorded, the order of the Tribunal, as it stands now, cannot be allowed to stand. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, in the light of the legal contentions advanced on either side. 12.. The tax case (revision) is thus disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (11) TMI 501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld attract the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act is not in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside. 10.. As regards the forceful argument advanced by learned Government Advocate before us that it will lead to tax evasion and tax avoidance should not be encouraged we are of the opinion that the question raised was not the subjectmatter for consideration either by the assessing officer or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Similar argument was not advanced before the Appellate Tribunal that the amalgamation itself was a device, adopted and designed to evade the taxes. We are of the view that it is now not open to learned Government Advocate to raise such a contention before us in the present tax case revision. Therefore we are unable to entertain the points raised by learned Government Advocate (Taxes). 11.. In this view of the matter, we allow the tax case revision. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... covered by those C forms so produced. 31.. Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers would also state that the assessee-dealers may be granted liberty to apply to the assessing authorities concerned for the deletion of such transactions in the assessment under the local law, inasmuch as they have paid tax for the local sales effected by the branches. The prayer made in this regard, we rather feel, is incapable of being granted. The reasons are rather obvious. The Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 1985 60 STC 301 (SC) issued such a direction, obviously because of the power inhering in its favour under article 142 of the Constitution of India. Such a power is not there for us and therefore it is, we rather feel, that we cannot grant the liberty asked for to apply for the deletion of the turnover covered by the transactions in the State of Bombay and Delhi. 32.. The Tax Case (Revision) is thus disposed of. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 499 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... placed on record before the assessing authority and the Tribunal by way of affidavits and statements of the technical experts, wholesalers, bulk consumers and retailers. 50.. For the said reasons, keeping in view the law laid down in the Ujagar Print s case 1989 74 STC 401 (SC) AIR 1989 SC 516 and the uncontroverted facts brought on record, it is quite permissible to take it as a possible view that the packaged blended tea produced in the industrial unit of the petitioner is a manufactured product, the contributing inputs being garden teas of various colour and flavour and the packing materials. 51.. Keeping in view the foregoing discussions and conclusions, it is held that the products of the industrial unit of the petitioner at Dharwad are entitled to the exemption from sales tax as envisaged under the two notifications. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The parties will bear their own cost. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 498 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hold that the assessing authority, which is a quasijudicial authority, has failed to exercise the power contained in section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We hope the assessing authority would act in accordance with the Act and the Rules and keep in mind that he has not only to act fearlessly but fairly while dealing with matters concerning interest of the revenue of the State. 6. Therefore, the reassessment order, vide annexure 2 series, is liable to be quashed. We accordingly do so and direct the assessing authority to take all coercive measures to ensure presence of the representative of the concerned firm with books of account before him to enable him to reassess the tax payable by the petitioner for the assessment year 1989-90 keeping in view the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Mittal and Company case 1988 69 STC 42. 7.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. P.K. TRIPATHY, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 497 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d in 1997 104 STC 407 (Lipton India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka). 4.. Accordingly, the present appeals were heard de novo along with the revision petition filed by Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited v. State of Karnataka (S.T.R.P. 55 of 1995) 1998 109 STC 265 (Kar) wherein on the identical factual settings as involved herein, we have answered the same very questions as posed before us in these writ appeals holding that the products of industrial units like the present one are entitled to exemption from sales tax under the Act. 5.. Accordingly, the present writ appeals are also allowed. The clarification of the Commissioner dated November 27, 1993 (annexure R) is quashed. The appellant-company is permitted to file its objections to the proposition notices within four weeks from today whereupon the assessing authority will complete the assessments in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the law laid down by us regarding grant of exemption. No costs. Writ appeals allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the transactions that took place between the period January 20, 1984 and January 30, 1984 covering a turnover of Rs. 3,20,680 as one effected by consignment sales through their agent PCL by way of stock transfer challans and therefore not exigible to tax. Thus, we are of the view that the entirety of the transactions that took place between January 20, 1984 and March 31, 1984 covering a turnover of Rs. 9,09,820 has to be construed as one of consignment sales through their agent PCL by effecting transfer of goods through stock transfer challans and therefore, not exigible to tax. We should not be misconstrued that we arrived at the same conclusion, as had been arrived at by the Tribunal, for the reasons given by it. We want to positively state that we arrive at such a conclusion, as arrived at by the Tribunal for our own reasons, as given above. 23.. In fine, the tax case (revision) deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 495 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is indefensible. Entries 26-FF and 30-FFF are consequentially of no assistance to it. 13.. A faint attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Revenue to submit that the petitioner instead of coming before this Court in a writ application ought to have approached the revisional authority as prescribed under the statute. It is, however, fairly accepted that a large number of cases involving similar disputes are coming up before the courts and revisional authority, and interpretation if any by this Court would reduce multiplicity of litigation. In that view of the matter, the existence of alternative remedy is considered to be of no consequence. 14.. In the result, the writ application succeeds. We direct the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela II Circle (opposite party No. 4) to issue form ID to the petitioner as applied for if the application is otherwise in order within two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. S.C. DATTA, J.-I agree. Writ application succeeds.
-
1997 (11) TMI 494 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... take such other appropriate remedy available to them under the Act. If such appeals are filed within 30 days from today, the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits without raising any objection with regard to the period of limitation. Further, if objections are filed within 30 days from today, the appellate authority is directed to consider the objections on merits and proceed to pass assessment orders in accordance with law. 17.. All the contentions urged by the petitioners on the merits of their claim, are left open to be urged either before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority, as the case may be. 18.. In the light of what is stated above, these petitions are dismissed subject to the liberty reserved to the petitioners, as stated above. Rule issued is discharged. However, no order is made as to costs. 19.. Smt. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader, is given four weeks time to file memo of appearance. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 493 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ove discussion, I am of the view that the learned Government Pleader cannot derive any assistance from the decisions of this Court in the case of Ananda Soap Factory v. State of Karnataka 1978 42 STC 356 and in the case of Hubli Opticals v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, V Circle, Hubli 1996 100 STC 405. In both the cases, referred to above, the circular issued by the Commissioner under section 3-A of the Act did not arise for consideration. On the other hand, the decisions referred to by me above, are directly on the question which I have considered. 13.. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that as stated earlier, the impugned orders of reassessment and the proposition notices are liable to be quashed. 14.. Accordingly, the impugned orders of reassessment/proposition notices impugned in each of the petitions are hereby quashed. These petitions are allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. However, no order is made as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 492 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (4) of section 12 of the Act. Any delay which takes place beyond the control of the Assessing Authority has to be excluded and not every delay. The provision for the payment of interest on the amount of refund has to be applied looking to the nature of the delay in a given case. The respondents have admitted that the refund order was passed on March 25, 1995 but delay took place because of the abolition of the sales tax check barriers and also because the petitioner filed application seeking refund in the month of May, 1996. Since the delay is apparent and has not been properly explained, there appears no reason to exclude any period of delay under sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act. 7.. The petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the refund amount of Rs. 40,000 in accordance with the rates provided in sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Act and from the dates specified therein. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ocumentary proof to the contrary. As observed by me earlier, in view of section 28-A of the Act, the burden is on the petitioner to show that the electrically operated motor is not an industrial machinery. The petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden. Under these circumstances, if the three authorities, referred to above, after considering the objections of the petitioner and after taking relevant matters into consideration, have found that the electrically operated motors in question are industrial motors, I do not find any justification to interfere with the said finding in exercise of my jurisdiction either under article 226 or under article 227 of the Constitution. The finding recorded by the authorities are purely questions of fact. 14.. In view of my above conclusion, I do not find any merit in these petitions and, therefore, they are liable to be rejected. 15.. Accordingly, the petitions are rejected. Rule issued is discharged. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 489 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the turn-over in respect of hides and skins which has once been subjected to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, on its purchase at the raw stage, could be taxed again on inter-state sales as tanned or dressed hides and skins?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are two types of commodities, it must flow therefrom that when the appellants purchased raw hiides and skins on payment of tax they would be liable to pay sales tax in respect of dressed hides and skins and such levy will not fall foul of Section 15 as the two goods are different taxable commodities. In other words the same goods would not have been taxed more than once. In our opinion, therefore the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion which it did, namely, that the sales tax authorities could levy sales tax on the sale of dressed hides and skins and that the provisions of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (3rd Amendment) Act, 1987 are not ultra vires.
-
1997 (11) TMI 487 - ITAT MUMBAI
Amount so adjusted for liability of tax should be treated as advancer tax for the purpose of computation of interest u/ss.234A, 234B and 234C insofar as the claim for non-levy of interest there under is an appealable issue.
-
1997 (11) TMI 486 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Transaction value - Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts ... ... ... ... ..... information in regard to the clearance of the batteries to M/s. HAL and whether it could be read from the invoices to HAL that the very same batteries which was being cleared to the Defence was cleared to HAL at a higher price. The learned lower authority has also not referred to the appellants rsquo plea that the duty was to be paid on account of the Defence and they would not have gained anything by paying a lower rate of duty. The learned lower authority has not examined the limitation aspect with respect to the above factors and other factors on record. We, therefore, hold that this aspect has to be looked into in depth and to this extent the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not proper. 11. emsp We, therefore, for the limited purpose of examination of the limitation aspect, remand the matter to the lower authority for de novo consideration and decision after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. 12. emsp The appeal is thus decided in the above terms.
-
1997 (11) TMI 484 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Moratorium, Non-banking financial company ... ... ... ... ..... It was submitted that the depositors were entitled to the money deposited by them with the petitioner-bank. Equally, the persons who had been allotted lockers were entitled to operate the same. 25. There was a contest between the parties on this issue. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the depositors will have to satisfy the bank about their claim. In the circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be possible to effectively decide the dispute in these proceedings. Of course, the persons who are able to satisfy the bank with regard to the factum of deposit shall be entitled to operate their accounts or withdraw the money. Equally, the clients of the bank shall also be entitled to operate their lockers. However, they will have to satisfy the bank with regard to their respective claims. 26. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
........
|
