|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 402 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 485
... ...
... ... ..... t the transportation charge of Rs. 20,000 has been abandoned at the time of argument. As regards detention charge of truck, there is enough confusion and no receipt to prove that a sum of Rs. 5,592 or Rs. 5,620 (whichever may be correct) was actually paid to the transporter on that count. Therefore, we are unable to grant any compensation to the applicants. 18.. Thus, the application is finally disposed of with the above findings. Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to henceforth dispose of applications filed by the applicants for sales tax permits and declaration forms according to law, but mere non-submission of any declaration and consequential non-payment of balance amount of tax in accordance with the proviso to section 11E(3) and rule 54A should not be considered to be a ground for refusal to issue sales tax permit or declaration form. There will be no order for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application disposed of.
-
1997 (4) TMI 484
... ...
... ... ..... of the matter. The order passed by the appellate authority is extremely cryptic and arbitrary. That order does not contain any reason for rejecting the points raised in the appeal. Even the Tribunal has adopted a lope-sided approach while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner. 8.. On the basis of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition and quash the orders annexures P3, P4 and P5 and direct the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner and after taking into consideration the evidence already produced and the evidence which the petitioner may produce at the time of re-hearing. We direct the Assessing Authority to pass appropriate order within four months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9.. A copy of this order be made available to the learned Deputy Advocate-General by the Bench Reader after due attestation so that the competent authority may initiate early action for compliance of this order. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 483
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner in his own language and might also mean that along with the hire charges the goods were also left with the miller. At any rate, as we explained earlier, the clause itself does not yield any meaning of such leaving of the goods at the premises of the miller to be in any way linked with the hire charges. 5.. The Tribunal however has proceeded exclusively on a footing of the by-products to have been left to the miller towards hire charges. Since the premise itself is wrong the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. The decision in Sri Lakshminarayana Rice Mill, Gannavaram v. State of A.P. (1990) 10 APSTJ 46 (Trib) is a decision on its own facts. It does not show such a clause as clause E(v) of the agreement of having been considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstances we find the order of the Tribunal as well as the assessing officer and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to be not sustainable and set aside. The petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 482
... ...
... ... ..... st is not payable when the tax has not been ascertained. 11.. The order dated 17th December, 1996 (annexure 5) does not give any reason as required under rule 47 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, there exists prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Balance of convenience is also in its favour. It will suffer an irreparable loss if stay is not granted. 12.. Both the original applications are allowed. The orders dated 17th December, 1996 (annexure 5 in both the cases) are set aside. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion I, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) will not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for the recovery of the disputed demands till the final disposal of the appeals by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur (respondent No. 1). Any observations made in this regard on the merits of the cases will not prejudice the case of either party. No order as to costs. Applications allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 481
... ...
... ... ..... ime of assessment, and the certificate issued in terms of sub-section (5)(a) of section 13-AA would have no overriding effect. It shall not affect the assessment of the sales tax liability, if any. The impugned order (annexure 1) is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 1) to consider the same keeping in view principles indicated above. To avoid unnecessary delay the petitioner is directed to appear before the Sales Tax Officer (opposite party No. 1) on 22nd April, 1997 and a decision shall be taken by the Sales Tax Officer by the end of April, 1997. This direction is given, keeping in view the requirement under the provision of rule 37-D(3) which says that the application is to be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of receipt and in the case at hand the application was filed long before. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. S.N. Phukan, C.J.-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 480
... ...
... ... ..... our view, the learned single Judge was correct in holding that exhibit P1 notification had brought about discrimination of taxation prohibited by article 304(a) of the Constitution of India. In the above view of the matter, we are not considering the question whether by an executive order, tax can be imposed on imported goods. 19.. Before the conclusion of the arguments, it was brought to our notice that the Government had issued another notification G.O. (MS) No. 38/93/TD dated March 9, 1993 by which exhibit P1 notification was given retrospective effect from the 1st day of April, 1992. But that notification itself stated that any turnover tax paid shall not be refunded. Thus, if tax had been collected from the petitioner-respondent before exhibit P1 notification, they shall not be entitled to refund of the same. In the result, the appeals are dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 709 of 1996 in W.A. No. 260 of 1996 dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 479
... ...
... ... ..... penalty can be imposed even if the goods are used for the purpose mentioned in the certificate. Hence the submission has no force. 5.. The learned Standing Counsel submits that a notice was given by the respondent to amend the recognition certificate on February 9, 1982 which was challenged by the petitioners under another writ petition. Be that as it may, if the recognition certificate is amended, that will be effective prospectively and that will have no bearing for the assessment year 1977-78 and, therefore, we are of the view that no penalty could be imposed on the facts and in the circumstances of the case for the assessment year 1977-78, inasmuch as the raw material was used by the petitioners for manufacturing the pipe and pipe fittings which are inter alia, mentioned in the recognition certificate. 6.. For these reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated August 19, 1984, annexure 3 to the writ petition, is quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 478
... ...
... ... ..... rit. 4.. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made another submission which also related to the production of C forms. Here the submission relates to a disputed turnover of Rs. 3,12,093.20. Here the C forms produced were rejected by the authorities below for want of reference to purchase order in the C forms furnished, and in view of the difference, regarding the value of the goods sold, between the C forms and the relevant invoices. In view of the fact that such a rejection is justified on the abovesaid ground, no question of law arises on this aspect also. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself also was not able to point out any acceptable explanation for such difference between C forms and the invoice. Learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly submitted that he is not pressing another disputed turnover amounting to Rs. 1,43,894.95. 5.. In view of these reasons, there is no merit in this tax case revision and the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 477
... ...
... ... ..... the dealer in excess, if any, and thereafter direct the refund of such amount as may remain after deducting any amount due from him. Under rule 35(1)(a) ibid, refund voucher has to be sent along with the assessment order to the dealer. The same has not been done in the present case. In spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, the amount has not been refunded. An obligation is cast on the assessing authority to send the amount of refund along with the assessment order. Authorities under the State Act are obliged to follow the Act and the rules faithfully and failure to do so, results in unnecessary litigation and harassment to the citizen of the country. For the reasons stated above, we accept this writ petition. Respondents are directed to refund the amount/adjust the same against any other outstanding demand against the petitioner within one month from today along with any statutory interest if payable under the State Act and the Rules. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 476
... ...
... ... ..... ommissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The applications for revision deserve to be allowed. 24.. Accordingly, the applications for revisions are allowed. It is held that the amounts received by the petitioner from its customers for developing their exposed films and for preparing positive prints from their negatives did not form part of the taxable turnovers. 25.. The judgments of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur and the common judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated February 23, 1996 are set aside. The assessment orders are modified and the amounts of tax levied on the aforesaid job receipts, interest and penalty imposed under section 16(1)(e) of the Act are set aside/reduced to the aforesaid extent. Revised demand notices will be issued. 26.. Amounts found paid in excess as per this judgment, will be refunded to the petitioner with interest in accordance with law, within three months from today. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 475
... ...
... ... ..... essment it should not be a wild one but must have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. 16.. In an other decision of this Court in the case of Munshi Singh Ashok Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1988 8 STR 378, this Court had indicated that before the assessing authority decides to pass a best judgment assessment he must inform the reasons or the grounds for non-acceptance of the turnover of the sales and purchases of the assessee before the best judgment assessment is passed. 17.. It is not disputed that in the present case no such show cause notice was given to the assessee before rejecting the declared turnover. 18.. In the result these revisions succeed in part and the matter is sent back to the first appellate authority, Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Meerut, with a direction to reconsider the appeals in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Petitions partly allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 474
... ...
... ... ..... Mughal Sarai. There is not even an iota of evidence that the dealer imported them from outside the State. Admittedly sale of timber is taxable if the sale is made by the Forest Department, the U.P. Forest Corporation or by private forest owner or by an importer. The revisionist is none of them. Therefore, the sale of old railway sleepers purchased by it in U.P. from the railways was not taxable under the Act. 18.. For the above reasons the revision petitions are allowed and partly setting aside the Tribunal s order dated February 13, 1996 in assessee s second appeal Nos. 636 to 639 of 1993 for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively. It is ordered that the quantum of turnover determined by the Tribunal is upheld but the turnover so determined is held to be not liable to any tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (now U.P. Trade Tax Act). The dealers said appeals will stand partly allowed accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 473
... ...
... ... ..... ivery to the Nellore customers. In the present case, though there is no such stock transfer , yet in view of the fact that the books of accounts of the assessee showed that the abovesaid disputed turnover represents sales by the assessee to the above referred to customers at Nellore and Chittoor, we should necessarily hold that after the initial sales to the assessee from the West Bengal manufacturer, there arose the above referred to inter-State sales from the assessee at Chennai to the abovesaid Andhra Pradesh customers, whereby the goods moved from Chennai to the abovesaid Nellore and Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, we are unable to find any material difference between South India Automotive Corporation Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 1980 46 STC 1 (Mad.) and the present case. Thus, we see no reason to differ from the orders of the authorities below, including the Tribunal. 13.. In the result, the tax case revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 472
... ...
... ... ..... imed that the kapoori tobacco being a product of tobacco is exempted under the above reproduced notification. 3.. The contention of the petitioner was accepted by the Trade Tax Tribunal decision of which was disputed by the respondents in this Court in the revision being S.T.R. No. 195 of 1992. In Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Mohan Lal Ram Kumar, Devi Road, Mainpuri 1997 10 NTN 25, the view taken Here italicised. by the Tribunal has been accepted by the learned single Judge of this Court with which we agree. 4.. The contention of the petitioner having been accepted in the revision by the learned single Judge of this Court, we are of the view that the respondents are bound by that decision so long as that decision holds the field. 5.. For the above reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed declaring that no trade tax would be levied by the respondents on the kapoori tobacco for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1992-93 against the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 471
... ...
... ... ..... ed, the petitioners are deprived of the benefit available under G.O. Ms. No. 108 as well as the exemption granted earlier and the same amounts to double jeopardy. 12.. It has to be noticed that why exemption is not granted to the petitioners in G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated May 20, 1996 is not before us. If the petitioners are entitled to the exemption under that G.O., it is for them to approach the concerned authorities and claim the same. Further, it cannot be said that because the petitioners are granted exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 2566 dated June 11, 1980, they are not granted exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated May 20, 1996. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the Government results in double jeopardy to the petitioners. 13. In view of the above stated circumstances, we do not see any merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 470
... ...
... ... ..... rity to limit the addition to the actual amount of suppression. Therefore he will estimate the addition by adding the gross profit to the value of the consignment of Rs. 3,05,576. 7.. From the above, it is clear that the value of the consignment in question has been accounted by the petitioner in its books of accounts and the same has been subjected to tax. In the absence of any other irregularity pointed out by the assessing authority and in view of the fact that the value of the consignment in question has been duly accounted and included in the return filed by the petitioner, there is no justification for making any addition to the returned turnover. We accordingly hold that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining any addition to the returned turnover. We therefore direct the deletion of the addition sustained by the Tribunal. The assessing authority will modify the assessment accordingly. The revision is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 469
... ...
... ... ..... essee although that information has been used by the said authority for passing an order adverse to the rights of the petitioner. In our opinion, the Assessing Authority was not right in declining the request of the petitioner. We, therefore, hold that the order, annexure P5, is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 10.. The orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the Sales Tax Tribunal-II are orders of affirmance. Therefore, in view of our finding that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is liable to be nullified on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal are also liable to be nullified. 11.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures P5 to P7 are quashed. However, the Assessing Authority shall be free to pass a fresh orders after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 468
... ...
... ... ..... e, the freight, etc., sought to be included in the turnover of the petitioner relates to the purchases effected by him and not pursuant to the sales effected by him. No contract obliging the customers of the petitioner to pay the freight charges incurred by the petitioner in respect of his purchases was also made out. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993 88 STC 15 relied on by the petitioner also does not lay down a different principle. The said decision is also of no assistance to the petitioner. 15.. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner have no application. We do not find any serious challenge to the quantum of escaped turnover assessee. There is no merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 467
... ...
... ... ..... purchase tax was attracted on the sale of the chassis mounted with motor body. We do not find any force in these applications for revision. 10. nbsp Accordingly, both the applications for the revision are dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. ORDER - R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.-Petitioner is a nationalised bank. In the course of its lending activities, gold and silver articles were pledged to the bank by its borrowers. When the borrowers commit default, the bank sells the pledged articles. In that connection the first respondent has issued notice dated June 26, 1988 (annexure A ) to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to register itself as a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and pay taxes on its turnover relating to sale of pledged articles, as the bank was periodically disposing of the pledged articles by way of auction sale. The first respondent also issued a notice dated August 17, 1989 (annexure C ) calling upon the bank to furnish information
-
1997 (4) TMI 466
... ...
... ... ..... view taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal is not correct view of law. Hence, the question No. 2 is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. 8.. Now coming to the third question which relates to cylinders-whether the cylinders can be considered to be packing materials or not, suffice it to say that the cylinders are the containers for the gases and they are packing material and there cannot be two opinion in the matter. In this connection, Division Bench of this Court has already taken the view in the case of same parties Eastern Air Products v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 MPLJ 14, that cylinders are the packing materials within the inclusive definition covered by phrase empty barrels . Hence, this question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9.. As a result of above discussion, we answer question Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of assessee and question No. 3 against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
........
|
