|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 365 Records
-
1997 (5) TMI 414 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... let out to one Sri Uma Shankar. This fact is not categorically denied in the counter-affidavit. 7.. On these facts, the contention of the petitioner that service by affixation could not have been legally effected on the premises where the firm continued its business in the past cannot be rejected. 8.. Ordinarily, orders having been passed under section 21 of the Act being appealable, we would not have made any interference but the facts as stated in the counter-affidavit are so glaring which do not create any doubt in accepting the version of the petitioner. 9.. Notice under section 21 is a jurisdictional notice and unless that is proved to have been duly served by the respondents, no order under that provision could legally be passed by the assessing officer. 10.. For the reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order passed under section 21 of the Act on September 21, 1982 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) is, therefore, quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 413 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and laces manufactured by the petitioners partake the character of fabrics/textiles and (2) Whether the tapes and laces manufactured by the petitioners are also used for the purpose of tying and drying clothes within the meaning of entry 50 of the Notification No. 7036, dated September 29, 1984 or whether they are used only as raw material for the manufacture of zippers, as averred by the petitioners. 9.. These questions are essentially questions of fact and clear findings have to be recorded on them by the assessing authority. Without findings on these vital questions, it is difficult to reach a correct conclusion. The matter, therefore, has to be sent back to the assessing authority. 10.. In the result, the petition is disposed of finally with the observations that the assessing authority shall record clear findings on the above stated questions after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and then pass an order in accordance with law. Matter remanded.
-
1997 (5) TMI 412 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hority. Thus there is no justification for our interference at this stage of the proceedings. 12.. We are also of the opinion that the petitioners are free to raise objection regarding the invalidity of the conditions incorporated in the certificates issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the ground that the same are ultra vires to rule 28A and the forms prescribed by the Rules of 1975 and we have no doubt that the Assessing Authority will examine the sustainability of such objection without being influenced by the fact that the petitioners did not file appeal under rule 28A(5) within 30 days of the issuance of the certificates. 13.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are dismissed as premature. The petitioners shall be free to raise all objections before the Assessing Authority and the same will be decided by the concerned authority after hearing the petitioners. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 411 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 31, 1997. 2.. On such deposit being made, the first respondent, viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle, Erode, shall issue notice to the petitioner/appellant as to on what ground he wants to assess it. 3.. On such notice being served, it is open to the petitioner/appellant to put forth their objections and produce the records. Further before such a notice is issued, the records that were sought by the assessee, as mentioned in the impugned order of assessment which is quashed, shall also be furnished to him. 4.. The assessment proceedings shall be completed on or before the end of July, 1997. 5.. In the event it is found that the assessee is not taxable, the amount so deposited be refunded to it with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit, till the date of payment. 6.. In the event the appellant fails to deposit the amount, the assessment order shall stand restored. 5.. No costs. 6.. C.M.P. No. 3494 of 1997 is dismissed. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT
Can can the Court lay down what should be the proper price and direct the Board to reduce its tariff fixed under Section 49?
Held that:- In the instant case, after imposition of Central Excise Duty on production of electricity at the rate of 0.02 paise per unit, the Board did not revise the uniform tariff, but decided to levy a surcharge of 0.03 paise per unit even though the duty payable was only 2 paise per unit. Reasons have been given in justification for surcharge of 3 paise per unit even though the duty levied was only 2 paise per unit which were found valid by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. On and from 2.6.1979, the surcharge was merged in uniform tariff by a notification issued by the Board. There is no dispute that the uniform tariff was fixed in conformity with the principle contained in section 49 of the Act. Along with other costs incurred by it, the Board also took into account the excise duty payable by the Board.
The Central Excise Duty has been merged in the uniform tariff. The petitioner, in effect, is seeking a reduction of the uniform tariff fixed by the Board. It is not the case of the petitioner that the tariff has been fixed regardless of considerations which have to be taken into account under section 49.Thus the High Court was clearly in error in directing modification of the tariff fixed by the Board. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 409 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e facts of a particular case is a factor which the authorities have to keep in mind while levying penalty. Though in such matters, no uniform principle can be applied, yet the quantum of penalty to be imposed would depend upon the amount withheld and the period for which it was withheld. Explanations offered by the concerned parties have to be taken note of by the concerned Sales Tax Officers while considering appropriateness or otherwise of the quantum of penalty to be levied. These aspects do not appear to have been considered by the authorities in their proper perspective. In the fitness of things, a fresh consideration of the entire materials would be appropriate. We direct the revisional authority to consider the materials brought on record by the assessee, and decide whether levy of penalty is called for, and it is to be levied, quantum thereof. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. S.N. PHUKAN, C.J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 408 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... heet of average weight of 1.950 kgs. It is on that basis estimation has been made. In exhibit P3 reply the petitioner has no case that he has not admitted that the average of 3 frac34 pairs of chappels cannot be obtained from one hawai sheet. On the contrary in exhibit P3 it is stated that the account of the petitioner shows average of 3.89 pair from one sheet. The Board of Revenue has evaluated the contention and observed that the stock variation arrived by estimating the production of hawai chappels at 3.75 pairs per sheet is therefore found to be reasonable. In view of the discussion aforesaid it is difficult for this Court to have a different conclusion from what has been found by the Board of Revenue in exhibit P5. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the orders levying penalty under section 45-A cannot be disturbed. The original petition is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 2080 of 1993-Dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 407 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ers against cash security, on refundable basis. Neither the dealers nor the consumers can sold the gas cylinders what is actually sold is the liquefied petroleum gas and not the gas cylinders. 12.. In view of the above, it is quite clear that the material purchased on the strength of certificate of registration, i.e., C forms, which had been used by the petitioner-firm in the manufacture of gas cylinders intended for sale in the course of inter-State trade, were actually neither sold by the petitioner-firm nor by the dealers for whom they were manufactured. Hence, the petitioner-firm committed a breach of the condition of certificate of registration, as discussed above, and the provisions of section 8(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, there being contravention of the provisions of section 10(d) of the Act, penalty under section 10-A of the Act was rightly imposed. 13.. Consequently, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 406 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court. It is a clear case of contempt, though we do not want to proceed against the Chairman, Noida for taking any action for contempt of the court at this stage. But we hope and trust that the Chairman, Noida will earnestly carry out the judgment of the court, without any further provocation. 7.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated December 2, 1992 passed by the Chairman, Noida, annexure 7 to the writ petition, is quashed and he is directed to grant the eligibility certificate in view of the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated May 5, 1992 and as reiterated in the instant judgment, within two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before the Chairman, Noida by the petitioner. Until the eligibility certificate is issued as aforesaid, recovery proceedings relating to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Acts shall remain stayed. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 405 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deduction was made by way of cautious approach lest there should arise any occasion to face the penalty for non-complying with those provisions. In views of that, I do not find any justification to grant any interests on the amount thus so far deducted. I therefore, direct that a deduction of Rs. 16,25,000 be adjusted towards the running account of the contractor, and the adjustment is to be done in accordance with sub-clause 60.7 referred above. 7.. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter annexure P-6. That letter is only a direction to intimate the payment received in respect of the work executed. In view of my observation made above, it follows that the information to be supplied would be in respect of payment received for the work executed so far, and, thereafter, from time to time. Thus, the position having been made clear it would not be now necessary to quash, annexure P-6. The petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent as stated above. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 404 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... 1983. The applicant is, therefore, not eligible on these grounds alone to exemption of tax under the said notification. This being the situation, we need not go into the question whether the applicant violated clause (vi) of the explanation given in the said notification. We also hold that in the circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to raise the question of prejudice caused to him due to delay in disposal of his application as he should have been aware that by producing fake purchase bills, etc., he was violating important conditions of the notification. In the result the application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. After the judgment is delivered, the learned advocate for the applicant prays for two weeks stay. It is opposed by Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative. We are not inclined to grant any stay. So the prayer is rejected. 20.. L.N. Ray (Chairman).-I agree. 21.. J. Gupta (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 403 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act can take place. Thus this point is decided in favour of the department. 12.. Having considered the material on record in the light of the relevant law bearing upon it we come to the conclusion that the counter-sales of gem and jewellery as also other items were local sales and not sales made in the course of export. These counter-sales were chargeable to tax. Thus we set aside the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated March 12, 1990 and the judgment of the Tax Board dated October 23, 1991 as also the order passed on rectification application dated April 23, 1992 and restore the order of the assessing authority dated March 25, 1988 with this difference only that the amount of interest amounting to Rs. 66,145 shall not be chargeable. The petitioner-firm shall make this payment within 60 days from today, failing which it will pay interest on the amount payable at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the 60th day of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (5) TMI 402 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... own unexplained money though in the names of Naresh Bhatia and Anitha Bhatia. This explanation is rejected. The addition is upheld. The fourth draft of Rs. 5,000 in any case has not been explained to us. Addition on this account is also upheld. 14. After considering the rival submissions and having gone through the material available before us as well as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) we are of the opinion that the assessee having not brought any fresh fact or material except the material made available to the lower authorities and dealt with by them there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The addition on this account is confirmed. 15. Ground (g) In this ground the assessee has agitated levy of interest under section 139 and under section 217 of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer to allow consequential relief on this account. 16. The appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed
-
1997 (5) TMI 401 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was rendering of service. 7.. It has contended that in the preceding years, the Tribunal had held that the revisionist s activity amounted to rendering of services. Copies of the Tribunal s order for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75 and 1975-76 have been annexed to the writ petition. Every year is an independent year and as is evident from the order of the Tribunal, this year, the matter had been examined in greater detail. Therefore, the Tribunal s order does not get vitiated simply because it did not follow the orders for other years and on an independent examination of the facts of the case took a different view. 8.. In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal s finding that the dominant object of the revisionist in the supply of food and drinks to customers was sale of goods does not suffer from any legal infirmity and no cause for interference under the revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 400 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... tice solely depending on rules and technicalities. In doing so, we direct respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, before whom the applicant s appeal from respondent No. 1 s order dated July 6, 1995 (order of re-determination of interest as Rs. 1,54,55,195) is pending, to dispose of the appeal at an early date according to law. While doing so, respondent No. 3 is directed to segregate determination of interest with reference to unpaid tax for the months of January, February and March, 1989, and he is further directed not to charge interest on a sum of tax (payable for those months) not exceeding Rs. 71,16,258 for the period from June 27, 1997 (when that amount was to be refunded upon quantification) latest up to June 22, 1993 (when the said amount was refunded by issuing R.P.O. cash). 18.. The application is thus finally disposed of without any order for costs. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (5) TMI 399 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also stands on different footings. 11.. However, so far as present case is concerned, as mentioned above, if the condition precedent for depositing the tax is not made then the appeal becomes incompetent and if the appeal is incompetent then revisional authority can examine whether order passed by lower authority is correct or not. If it concluded that the order of lower authority is not validly passed then it can set aside the order and remand the case back to the authorities to decide the appeal on the merits. But it cannot go into the merits of the assessment order as the first question regarding maintainability of the appeal has to be decided because of condition precedent for deposit of tax. Hence, the second question is answered accordingly. 12.. With above observations, both the petitions (M.P. Nos. 1859 of 1984 and 2207 of 1984) are disposed of accordingly. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 398 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... istinguished from its custody. It is not uncommon to find the transferee of goods in possession while transferor is having custody. 14.. As already pointed out the vehicles remained in the custody of the petitioner through the drivers and, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 3 was in possession of them between the point of loading and unloading of its consignments. 15.. We are, therefore, of the view that the contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was only a contract for service and the transportation charges received by the petitioner from respondent No. 3 are not exigible to tax under section 3-F of the Act as there was no transfer of the right to use of any specified vehicles. 16.. For the above reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Entire assessment proceedings relating to the consecutive assessment years 1987 to 1991 initiated by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in regard to transportation charges are quashed. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 397 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... concerned, we have already pointed out that petitioner does not claim the benefit of section 6(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, but on the other hand its claim is that the works contract executed by it did not involve transfer of property in any goods and, therefore, no deduction of tax at source was envisaged. As pointed out already, no separate argument was advanced in that regard and no materials were placed before us to show that the contract did not involve any transfer of goods. If any deduction is made by the contracting party at source when payment is made under the bills or invoices, it is certainly open to that petitioner to establish its claim before the assessing authority and seek refund of the amount paid in excess. IX. Conclusion. 60.. In the result, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for by them. Consequently, these writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 396 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... can be made by the petitioner-company to itself. 18.. For these reasons we are of the view that no purchase tax could be levied under section 3(1)(c) of the Act of 1939 on the transfer of alcohol from the distillery to the chemical factory of the petitioner-company. 19. So far as the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,02,34,845.52 is concerned, the petitioner-company may make a proper application for the refund thereof to respondent No. 2 who will consider the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 20.. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with the observation that any application made by the petitioner for the refund of purchase tax already deposited by the petitioner-company under protest, will be decided by respondent No. 2 in the light of the above observation made by us expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of the application along with certified copy of this judgment to the said respondent. Petition allowed.
-
1997 (5) TMI 395 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
... ...
... ... ..... or the animal driven vehicles, are exempt under the law and under the proviso to the Notification No. 7551 dated December 31, 1976, no concession under this notification shall be admissible on the turnover of the goods manufactured by the unit which is exempt under clause (a) or (b) of section 4 of the Act. The question of exemption of turnover will be relevant for the purposes of assessment, but so far as question of levying penalty is concerned, penalty can be levied only when raw material purchased under the recognition certificate, is used in the manufacture of goods not covered by the recognition certificate. This is not the case here, inasmuch as the petitioner used the raw material for the manufacture of rubber tubes, which are nothing but rubber products as notified in the recognition certificate. 7. On these facts, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated July 31, 1985 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) is, therefore, quashed. Petition allowed.
........
|
