|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 519
... ...
... ... ..... on any more. In paragraph 8 of the application it is admitted that the financial institutions and Bank of India prevented implementation of the sanctioned scheme by failing to release the envisaged funds or to grant credit facilities. 10.. Thus, in our opinion, none of the pre-requisites of section 22(1) of Act of 1985 exists in the instant case so that it can be held by us that respondent No. 1 was prevented by section 22(1) from initiating the certificate case No. 9ST/ AW/1996-97 or from issuing the impugned letter dated November 28, 1996 prohibiting operation of bank account with UCO Bank, Hastings Branch. That being the position, the applicants are not entitled to the protection of section 22 of Act of 1985 and no declaration, direction or prohibitory order can be passed by us, as prayed for. 11.. In the result, the application is dismissed without any order for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. Kar GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 518
... ...
... ... ..... ermediate stage of bricks as understood in common parlance and are goods in the ordinary sense of the term being a commercial commodity. 7.. From this authority it is amply clear that manufacturing of bricks is done in several stages and that commences right from the stage suitable clay is collected for moulding bricks and when fully baked bricks ready for marketing are taken out from the kiln. Since pathai operation continued right from December 7, 1983, it cannot be said that the business of brick kiln remained closed for more than six months. Learned Standing Counsel candidly concedes that if the pathai operation is taken to be the part of the manufacturing process, then the brick kiln business cannot be said to have remained closed for more than six months. Keeping in view the kiln business, no other view but the view that pathai operation is a part of the manufacturing process, can be taken. For the above reasons, the revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 517
... ...
... ... ..... this case no different view was taken and all that was said was that a revisional order must be promptly communicated to the party concerned. The requirement to communicate the order promptly is not a question of limitation in itself, but is a requirement of fairness and propriety, i.e., of natural justice. Section 14(4A) of the Act no doubt is couched in the same language as section 20(3) of the Act, but on the facts of the present case we do not think that there was such unexplained or inordinate delay so as to throw out the fresh assessment order. 3.. It is conceded by Mr. S. Krishna Murthy that the assessee has never challenged either before the first appellate authority or the second appellate authority or even before this Court that the fresh assessment order was ante-dated so as to bring it within four years limitation. Hence on facts, the Supreme Court decision is not applicable. The application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 516
... ...
... ... ..... the limits up to which the Legislature is given a free hand for making classification in a taxing statute. The obvious reason for making the classification is to group together those eating houses alone wherein costlier cooked food is sold for the purpose of imposition of sales tax to raise the needed revenue from this source. The object apparently is to raise the needed revenue from this source by taxing the sale of cooked food only to the extent necessary and, therefore, to confine the levy only to the costlier food. The predominant object is to tax sale of cooked food to the minimum extent possible, since it is a vital need for sustenance. Those who can afford the costlier cooked food, being more affluent, would find the burden lighter. This object cannot be faulted on principle and is, indeed, laudable. 9.. Hence we do not find any merit in these petitions and both of them are dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 515
... ...
... ... ..... ordships that it was a highly arguable contention which required serious consideration by the court. In these circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court set aside the penalty. But in the present case, there is hardly any issue with regard to third proviso to section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act. It clearly stipulated in the third proviso that in view of entry of goods which had not suffered tax and the goods which were found with the last purchaser, he was under obligation to pay tax. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was no such serious argument in issue, so far as the third proviso to section 3(1) is concerned. More so, the third proviso has already been upheld by this Court and hence, the assessee cannot escape liability of payment of tax as well as penalty in accordance with law. 6.. In the result, the petition being bereft of merits is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Security amount if any be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 514
... ...
... ... ..... e levied on pulses. We do not want to express any opinion on section 7(1)(a) of the Act of 1958 as that is not the case before us. In this connection, our attention is invited to the notification issued by the State Government in which payment of sales tax has been totally exempted by notification dated October 1, 1978 which says that sale of products and by-products of whole pulses, such as separated pulses, besan and chuni have been exempted under section 6 of the Act of 1958. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, in view of section 15(d) of the Act of 1956, no purchase tax under section 7(1)(b) can be levied on any pulses which may have been used or consumed in the manufacture of other goods by the assessee. 11.. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed as indicated above. Authorities may examine the tax liability in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount if any be refunded to the petitioners. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 513
... ...
... ... ..... e has evaded or sought to evade any tax due under the Act. It is only a case of delay in complying with the provisions of the Act, viz., submitting the returns within the time stipulated in rules 21(7) and 27(11) of the K.G.S.T. Rules which can be considered to be a contravention as contemplated in section 45A of the Act. The maximum penalty that could be imposed in such circumstances is only Rs. 5,000. 11.. Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, I am of the view that penalty of Rs. 5,000 each for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 under the K.G.S.T. Act and for 1986-87 under the C.S.T. Act alone can be imposed. I do so. In the result, the penalty orders exhibits P-1 to P-3 as modified by exhibits P-4 and P-5 by the first revisional authority and confirmed by the Board of Revenue shall stand modified as above. The original petition is allowed to the above extent. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 512
... ...
... ... ..... ssam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Section 3(6) of the Act also gives the power to persons appointed under section 3(1) of the Act. The meaning of word/term delegation is conferring on an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself. So, issue of notice and recording of reasons by the Inspector of Taxes cannot be deemed to be bad. The two decisions (Controller of Estate Duty v. Kantilal Trikamlal AIR 1976 SC 1935 and Varghese v. Income-tax Officer AIR 1981 SC 1922) relied on does not help the petitioner, as the factual matrix and the provisions of statute are different. 14.. Regarding Bureau of Investigation section 45 of the Act is a complete answer. This authority is for the purpose of collection of intelligence, enquiry and investigation in connection with evasion of taxes. 15.. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. Stay order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. Writ application dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 511
... ...
... ... ..... . Under these circumstances, according to learned Government Pleader, the contention put forward at the time of hearing, cannot be countenanced. 15.. We find a reference to this aspect in the assessment orders. But, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, it is not seen that the assessee has taken any objection regarding the quantum of penalty before the Board of Revenue. A copy of the objection filed before the Board of Revenue to the notice issued under section 37 was made available by learned Government Pleader before us. On going through the objections, we find no such contention is taken by the assessee. It is also correct that such a contention is not seen taken in the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court also. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to consider the above prayer made by the appellant. In the result, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 2648 of 1987 in M.F.A. No. 80 of 1987 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 510
... ...
... ... ..... ption, therefore, cannot be raised under section 12-A in respect of the transactions therein. In the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1969 24 STC 487 the Supreme Court observed as under ...........If, apprehending that it may have to pay sales tax on the freight, the company collected sales tax on the freight, the true nature of the contract between the company and the purchasers could not on that account be altered. That the company might be liable to refund the amount of excess sales tax to its purchasers was a matter between the company and the purchasers and the State could not seek to levy tax on railway freight if it was not made part of the price. 8.. In all the three cases the mere deposit of tax would not change the legal position. In view of the above, these revisions have no force and are dismissed. Cost on the parties. Copy of this order be placed in records of S.T.R. Nos. 371 of 1988 and 372 of 1988. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 509
... ...
... ... ..... tions have been laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, those are meant to meet different requirements with a different object. It is the health of the people which is a primary concern while laying down standards and specifications under those Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assesseecompany should also manufacture maize oil of the same standards and specifications and then only its product can be treated to be edible oil for the purposes of taxation. In the broad and general sense and in common parlance, the oil produced by the assessee-company, if used as a major constituent of vegetable ghee, can be treated to be within the realm and ambit of edible oil. Therefore, maize (corn) oil produced by the assessee-company is to be treated as edible oil. 17.. The question, reproduced in the first paragraph of this order, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1997 (2) TMI 508
... ...
... ... ..... of suppression, we are of the view that the basis taken by the authorities, namely, that of addition to the running stock is perfectly justified. The only question is whether estimate is to be made 2 times the average running stock. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we find that justice will be served if 1 frac12 times of the average running stock is taken. As mentioned earlier, the inspection was conducted after 50 days starting of the assessment year. The suppression was to the extent of Rs. 73,652. If whole year suppression is to be calculated on the above basis also we find that it will be equivalent to an amount calculated at 1 frac12 times of the running stock value. We therefore modify the order passed by the Tribunal estimating the turnover as 2 times the running stock value as 1 frac12 times the running stock. The revision stands partly allowed. C.M.P. No. 3655 of 1995 in T.R.C. No. 162 of 1995 dismissed. Petition partly allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 507
... ...
... ... ..... support the aforesaid contention of the appellant. According to the said decision it is the burden of the assessee to prove that the movement of the goods was occasioned not by reason of sale but occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods. Furnishing of F form is neither conclusive nor mandatory. It is for the dealer to discharge the burden of proof of the transaction by adducing proper evidences. If the transaction is not genuine transaction of transfer of goods from one place to another by reason of stock transfer, the same could be rejected by the assessing authority under section 6A(2) of the Act. The learned single Judge has considered in details the findings made by the sales tax authorities and had found no inherent infirmity in the same. We have also considered the findings of the tax authorities and order passed by the learned single Judge and confirm the same. 5.. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 506
... ...
... ... ..... In the absence of such a definite finding that the assessee has collected anything more than what is shown in his accounts or bills, the assessment made on that basis invoking provisions of section 19B of the Act is unsustainable in law. So, we see no ground to uphold the valuation adopted by the assessing authority under section 19B of the Act. This point is accordingly found in favour of the assessee and, the assessing authority is directed to accept the value of the goods as shown in the accounts of the assessee for the year under appeal. 8.. We are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal as above. The decision of the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in C.O. Devassy s case 1991 81 STC 2. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 505
... ...
... ... ..... kent tiles are ceramic products and are used for side walls and bath rooms, etc. Assessment was thus confirmed. 4.. It is contended by the assessee that the Tribunal has committed an error in bringing kent tiles which is unglazed tiles, within entry No. 105 which takes in only glazed tiles apart from mosaic tiles, etc. Unglazed tiles is not included in entry No. 105. On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that it has not entered a specific finding as to whether kent tiles are glazed tiles or unglazed tiles. We are of the view that a specific finding on this aspect is necessary to decide the question whether kent tiles would come within entry No. 105. We therefore set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and send back the case for fresh consideration and for entering a specific finding as to whether Kent tiles are glazed tiles or unglazed tiles and to decide the question accordingly. The tax revision case is allowed to the above extent. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 504
... ...
... ... ..... Duties of Excise Act and distributes a part of the proceeds among the States provided the States do not levy taxes on sale or purchase of the scheduled commodities. If for any reason, State levies tax on sale or purchase of scheduled commodities, then the State will be deprived of its share in the proceeds of additional duties of excise for that financial year. Parliament has not prohibited any State from levying tax on sugar or sugar preparation which a State can levy in view of entries in List II. 21.. For the reasons stated, I hold sugar-candy which is nothing but sugar preparation is liable to payment of sales tax under the Act. Accordingly, I hold sugar-candy is not exempt from payment of tax under entry No. 31-B of the Fifth Schedule to the Act and in view of this, I uphold the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in No. CLR. CR. 80/93-94 dated September 1, 1993. 22.. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 503
... ...
... ... ..... dental chairs the reasoning adopted by the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts has a direct bearing. 6.. As we have practically two conflicting decisions one of the Kerala High Court in E.V. Industries case 1974 33 STC 308, and the other of the Allahabad High Court in Imperial Surgico Industries case 1969 23 STC 201, we have no hesitation in opting for the construction placed on the meaning of the word furniture by the Allahabad High Court. In common parlance the items in question cannot be regarded as furniture and are items which hospitals and medical establishments must necessarily keep for the cure and care of patients out of functional necessity and are not intended to make hospitals and medical establishments appear to be well-appointed. 7.. The sale of the items in question would therefore not be exigible to tax as metal furniture but would be at the general rate. 8.. For these reasons the application for revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 502
... ...
... ... ..... noted during inspection and the penalty was limited to the excess stock for the purpose of sales tax and turnover tax. All the authorities found that there is no proper explanation for the excess revealing suppression and that the assessee has failed to keep true and complete accounts. The Division Bench judgment will apply to a case where the authorities have levied the penalty without independent evaluation. I am of the view that they have independently considered the reason for imposing the penalty. Once subsection (1) of section 45A of the Act is satisfied the authorities can impose penalty of not exceeding the twice the amount of sales tax which was quantified at Rs. 25,437. Thus the two times tax of Rs. 1,61,864 was reduced to Rs. 81,000 and from 250 and 200 per cent and further reduced to Rs. 25,437. In the above circumstances I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue and hence the original petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 501
... ...
... ... ..... of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of the Constitution. But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. The Supreme Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice needs to be strongly discouraged. 9.. The petition in hand also seems to have been filed only with a view to circumvent statutory procedure and avoid assessment. This petition must, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs Rs. 500 to be adjusted from the amount of security. The remaining amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 500
... ...
... ... ..... 74 STC 288 (Raj), it has been held that mere falsity of the explanation of the dealers would not attract penalty and it could be imposed under section 16(1)(e) if it is shown that he deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. It has been held in C.T.O. v. Baran Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. 1994 93 STC 239 (Raj), Asst. Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kumawat Udhyog 1978 41 STC 459 (MP) that means rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Act. The facts of the case Narian Das Suraj Bhan v. Commissioner, Sales Tax 1968 21 STC 104 (SC), are quite different and distinguishable. Provisions of U.P. Sales Tax Act similar to section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 were not under consideration in this case. 11.. Accordingly, the application for revision is partly allowed. Penalty of Rs. 24,000 imposed under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 against the petitioner is set aside. Application partly allowed.
........
|
