|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 280 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 350
... ...
... ... ..... is Rs. 17,38,490 and the turnover suppressed during 1993-94 is Rs. 45,25,430. The finding and conclusions were cogently considered and confirmed by the next two authorities. 6.. A division Bench of this Court in P.D. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax 1992 85 STC 337 considered the scope of section 45A of the Act. While upholding the penalty provision, the division Bench held that all that is necessary is that there should be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed and the inference of one fact from proof of another fact, shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary. The power can be exercised only on the basis of materials and on valid and reasonable grounds and not the mere ipse dixit of the officer. This principle has been kept in view and applied in this case. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the orders. Original petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 349
... ...
... ... ..... als in relation to packing of liquid articles and the sales of empty bottles are entitled to the concessional rate of tax provided under section 5(7) of the Act provided the other conditions of the said section are satisfied. In these cases, there is no dispute regarding the compliance of the other conditions of section 5(7) of the Act. 20.. In the light of the above, we hold that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the authorities below were not justified in denying the concessional rate of tax under section 5(7) of the Act claimed by the petitioners in these cases. We set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and by the authorities which are challenged in these cases. Further we direct the assessing authority to pass fresh orders allowing concessional rate under section 5(7) of the Act claimed by the petitioners and complete the assessment accordingly. The tax revision cases are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 348
... ...
... ... ..... without notice of 7 days and the other made without notice and without hearing of the opposite party. 16.. The requirements of clause (b) of section 8(7), RTT Act are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17.. Therefore, the original application contains in it a prayer for interim relief as also a prayer for dispensing with the requirement of prior notice to the opposite party, i.e., to say that the party seeks the interim relief in relaxation of the requirement of section 8(7) and failing that, the grant of interim relief after meeting the requirement of section 8(7). I take it therefore that the honourable Chairman is of the view, with which I am in agreement, that this is not a fit case for waiving the requirements of section 8(7), RTT Act, that is to say the application for interim relief shall come up for consideration after service of due notice to the opposite party. Notice may accordingly be issued to the opposite parties. Application dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 347
... ...
... ... ..... therefore, set aside the orders passed by the three authorities and direct the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) to consider the matter afresh in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in K.G. Thommen v. State of Kerala (1994) KLJ (TC) 477. It will be open to the assessee to bring to the notice of the enquiry officer the declaration in form 25 in respect of the consignment concerned, if the declaration was not already produced before the first authority, but was produced only before the Tribunal. If the declaration is thus brought before the enquiry officer, he will take into consideration the same also, while passing final orders in this matter. Final orders will be passed by the enquiry officer within three months. The revision petition stands partly allowed as above. The bank guarantee furnished by the assessee will continue till final orders are passed by the enquiry officer. Order on C.M.P. No. 3089 of 1996 in T.R.C. No. 92 of 1996 dismissed. Petition partly allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 346
... ...
... ... ..... discriminatory and cannot be supported. Upholding the findings of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench further observed It may be that the assessing authority has got the discretion to issue delivery notes. But, the discretion vested in the authority should be exercised fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. There is no reason or basis to withhold supply of delivery notes to the assessee in book form as required by him. Admitting that the assessing authority has discretionary power to reject the request for issue of delivery notes in book form, it shall be done within the statutory frame work. 12.. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, I direct the first respondent to issue C forms and delivery notes to the petitioner-company as requested by it in exhibit P3 application. The interim order passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 9270 of 1993 on April 16, 1993 is also made absolute. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 345
... ...
... ... ..... terest. In terms of section 10B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the applicant is entitled to receive interest on the same. Interest on Rs. 10,000 at the rate mentioned in that section comes to Rs. 12,000 for 5 years. 7.. We are, therefore, of the opinion that such interest should be paid to the applicant. 8.. Hence, the application succeeds to the extent discussed above. The refund of money in terms of the interim order dated November 29, 1996 is made absolute. The respondents are directed to pay within three months from this day by an MICR instrument to the applicant a sum of Rs. 12,000 as interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000 for delay in refund of the money. We, however, make no order as to costs. After the delivery of the judgment learned State Representative prays for staying the operation of the judgment for 8 weeks. Considered and we find no substance in such prayer and is rejected. M.K. KAR GUPTA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 344
... ...
... ... ..... running stock to 1 frac12 times. In that case the assessee returned a turnover of Rs. 12,26,207. The suppression found at the time of inspection on May 20, 1988 was to the extent of Rs. 73,652, which included the stock variation and unaccounted transaction. The quantum of variation in the above case is less than what was found in the present case. No material is placed before us regarding the turnover returned for the earlier or subsequent years for the purpose of comparison. Reported as George Joseph v. State of Kerala 1997 107 STC 152 (Ker). 5.. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we find that interest of justice will be served if two times the average running stock is taken. We therefore modify the order passed by the Tribunal estimating the turnover as three times the running stock value as two times the running stock. The revision stands partly allowed. C.M.P. No. 946 of 1996 in T.R.C. No. 30 of 1996 dismissed. Petition partly allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 343
... ...
... ... ..... provisions of the Act cannot in any way affect the liability under section 6B of the Act since in sub-section (1) thereof the Legislature has excluded the consideration of such exemptions by specifically declaring whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax under any other provisions of this Act . It has been made more explicit by further declaring under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6B of the Act to the effect that no other deduction shall be made from the total turnover of a dealer for the purpose of this section . This means that except the deductions provided under the first proviso to section 6B(1) nothing else can be deducted from the total turnover as defined under section 2(u-2) for the purpose of levy of turnover tax under section 6B of the Act. 8.. For the said reasons, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 342
... ...
... ... ..... to go into the question whether the supply of food, refreshments, beverages, etc., made by a members club to its members is non-taxable notwithstanding article 366(29A) of the Constitution and the consequent amendments in the Bihar Finance Act and I leave this question open to be decided in an appropriate case. 49.. It may further be clarified that this case has been decided only on the question of applicability of the Act to petitioner No. 1. I have not gone into the merits of the assessment orders passed against petitioner No. 1. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge the assessment orders by filing appeal, revision, etc., in accordance with law. In case an appeal or revision as provided under the Act is filed within six weeks from today, it will not be dismissed on the question of limitation alone. 50.. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation and directions made above. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 341
... ...
... ... ..... spect has been well-settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1970 25 STC 211 AIR 1970 SC 253, para 7 (page 214 of STC) wherein it has been held that ...........An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 7.. For the said reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order which is accordingly set aside. The appeal thus is allowed, but without costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 340
... ...
... ... ..... are public servants and under the constitutional mandate they are bound to act reasonably and justly. In the case of N.C. Mukherjee and Co. v. Union of India 1968 68 ITR 500 it has been held by the Supreme Court that .............We think that justice demands that before the Certificate Officer executes the demand against the appellant-firm, amounts refundable to it or its partners should be ascertained by the concerned Income-tax Officer so that the demand may be executed only for the balance. 8.. In our opinion, in the present case also, before levying penalties, the assessing authority should have reasonably ascertained the amount which would have been refundable to the assessee only in order weigh as to whether it was a fit case for imposing penalty. 9.. For the said reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the penalties in question. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 339
... ...
... ... ..... ith reference to the additional tax computed in the present application after deducting therefrom the additional tax payable in respect of the earlier admitted application ? Any additional income disclosed in an application under section 245C filed before the date of the search, will not be regarded as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 158B(b) and section 158BA if such application has been admitted under section 245D(1). If the fresh settlement application filed in respect of the case under Chapter XIV-B includes the additional income disclosed in the earlier application already admitted, such income shall be disregarded in computing the additional tax under section 245C(1A) and for the purposes of section 245D(2A). d The question posed for consideration of the Special Bench are answered accordingly. Further processing of the pending applications in these cases in the light of our present order will take place in the Benches where such applications are pending.
-
1997 (6) TMI 338
... ...
... ... ..... 00 and interest thereon is concerned, the Competent Authority has observed that lsquo lsquo no evidence has been adduced to indicate that this amount was not available with the person affected on the date of issue of notice rsquo rsquo . We do not agree with the finding given by the Competent Authority. Firstly, under the present proceedings he cannot hold another property (here property at Meenakshipuram) which had already been disposed of before the issue of the notice and for which apparently no notice was given either to the appellant or the detenu. Secondly, it is for the Competent Authority to prove that on the date of notice served on the appellant she had a cash balance of Rs. 21,000. His observations in this regard are rather strange. Accordingly, we modify this part of the impugned order and order defreezing of the forfeiture of Rs. 21,000. In the result, except to the extent stated in paras. 11 and 13 (pages 45 and 46 supra) above, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1997 (6) TMI 337
... ...
... ... ..... rd should be lost or misplaced. If the assertion made on behalf of the Competent Authority is correct, the reasons are either misplaced, lost or stolen. Though there is no requirement under section 6(1) to communicate the reasons recorded to the affected person, in the absence of any provision prohibiting such communication, it would be more prudent for the Competent Authority to communicate the reasons recorded to the affected person, either along with the notice under section 6(1) or separately, under acknowledgment. If the reasons are communicated and acknowledged by the affected person, no plea can be raised that no reasons were recorded. In the view we have taken that the orders under appeal are not sustainable, we do not propose to go into the merits. We accordingly allow F. P. A. Nos. 14/Mds of 1996 and 15/Mds of 1996 and set aside the orders of forfeiture of the Competent Authority. F. P. A. Nos. 16/Mds of 1996 and 17/Mds of 1996 will be dealt with by separate orders.
-
1997 (6) TMI 336
Demand - Modification of price list - Goods sold at a price lesser than the price approved earlier
-
1997 (6) TMI 335
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Small amount - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... y. Applicants are pleading financial hardship very seriously. However, keeping in view the small amount and the fact that the appeal is already listed for hearings on today, I dispense with the same and proceed to decide the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 327
Winding up - Suits stayed ... ... ... ... ..... and cheaply in the winding up. With due respect I agree. 7. Sri. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for some of the respondents cited the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Damiji v. L.I.C. of India AIR 1966 SC 135 wherein the scope of section 446 vis-a-vis section 41 of the Life Insurance Corpn. Act was discussed. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the provisions of the Special Act i.e. the Life Insurance Corporation Act will override the provisions of the general Act namely the Act, which is an Act relating to companies in general. If the above view is accepted the special provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the cheques, will definitely prevail over the provisions contained in the Act. Under these circumstances I am unable to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioner. Therefore these petitions are dismissed. The Magistrates Courts are directed to proceed with the complaints as expeditiously as possible. SCL q MARCH 5, 1998
-
1997 (6) TMI 321
Modvat/Cenvat - Packaging material ... ... ... ... ..... wood for tea chests or (vi) bags or sacks made out of fabric (whether or not coated, covered or laminated with any other material) woven from strips or tapes of plastics. It is seen from the above that in terms of Explanation to Rule 57A, packaging materials are eligible inputs for the purpose of Modvat credit. There is no dispute that the aerated waters are cleared from the factory packed in the plastic containers. These plastic containers are recycled for repeated clearances of the aerated waters. At the relevant time the aerated waters were leviable to specific rate of duty. Since the levy was specific rated, packaging material namely crates therefore could not be taken to be falling within the excluded category in terms of Explanation to Rule 57A under which the scope of the term lsquo input rsquo has been defined. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we hold that there is no force in the plea of the Revenue and we dismiss the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 320
Valuation - Deductions - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... l Representative on behalf of the appellant Collector and Shri D.B. Desai, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the respondent. 3. emsp We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record. We find that the Collector (Appeals) had relied upon an earlier order covering a similar issue in the respondent rsquo s own case. That decision was challenged by the Collector before the Tribunal which remanded the matter for de novo decision. On such afresh decision by the Assistant Collector which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) the present respondents approached the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/01/92-A. It was held by the Tribunal that the element of Modvat credit taken on the inputs should not be added to the declared assessable value of the final product. See Final Order No. 90/94-A, dated 29-4-94 1995 (75) E.L.T. 131 (T) . Following the same decision which is applicable on all fours to the present case, we confirm the order appealed against and dismiss the appeals.
-
1997 (6) TMI 307
... ...
... ... ..... erms of the Valuation Rules. We observe, the law mandates that where the transaction value of the sales price is not acceptable, the price should be fixed based on the Valuation Rules. This not having been done, we hold the lower authority rsquo s order in this regard is not proper. We, therefore, for this limited purpose remand the matter for de novo consideration and decision in the light of the above observations. 11. emsp Adverting to the levy of penalty, we hold that the appellants have suppressed the facts from the department in regard to the extra realisations made by them and the penalty levied is only Rs. 50,000/-. In the facts and circumstances, we do not think it is excessive and we, therefore, uphold the levy of the same. 12. emsp In regard to the other two appellants, since none is present, we dismiss the appeals under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. 13. emsp The appeal of M/s. Krishna Industrial Chemicals Pvt. Ltd is partially allowed in the above terms.
........
|
