|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 431 Records
-
1998 (6) TMI 552 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d, as has been done in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Agra Belting Works 1987 66 STC 1 (SC). It is not necessary to go into that question because the entry regarding levy of tax under the Second Schedule remained in existence. The power for exemption by issuing the notification under section 8-A(1) or transposing the entry to the fifth Schedule has only put the levy of tax in hibernation. The entry in the Second Schedule prescribing the rate of tax on the taxable commodity comes into operation the moment the notification under section 8-A(1) is issued or power of transposition of entry by the State Government is exercised. In the present matter, since the notification exempting the wheat bran under section 8-A(1) dated March 30, 1996 have been cancelled under section 8-A(3), it cannot be considered that there is any violation of the provisions of section 8-A(2A). These writ petitions therefore having no force are accordingly dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 551 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue from the company, which is a distinct and different legal entity. In the latter decision cited supra, it was ruled out that for recovery of sales tax arrears due from the company, no proceedings can be initiated against the director or the Managing Director. In the light of the above decisions it has to be held that the petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of sales tax allegedly due from the company of which they are only directors with no personal liability. 5.. In the result the original petition is allowed and it is hereby declared that the petitioners being directors of the company have no personal liability to pay arrears of sales tax allegedly due from the company. All proceedings initiated or to be initiated against them will be of no effect and non-est in the eye of law. Exhibits P2 to P6 will remain quashed. The original petition is allowed as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 10355 of 1995 in O.P. No. 5833 of 1995 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 550 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... y implication from which the purported legislative intent, contended on behalf of the respondents, can be drawn. 7.. Accordingly, in our opinion enjoyment of tax holiday under rule 3(66) framed under the Act of 1941 by the applicant-company is not a disqualification for enjoyment of deferment of tax under section 40 of the Act of 1994 if otherwise qualified. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner are all set aside. Respondent No. 4 is directed to dispose of the application of the applicant-company for deferment of tax under section 40 by a fresh order according to law, following the decision in this judgment after giving the applicant-company an opportunity of being heard. Such fresh order on the application dated May 14, 1997 shall be made within a period of four weeks from now. Thus, the main application is finally disposed of without any order for cost. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 549 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents as one of the items which are entitled for concessional rate of tax. Since the three items fall within the meaning of electronic components the judgment referred to above is not relevant. 5.. We, therefore see no reason to disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal as we are of the opinion that these three items are electronic components within the meaning of paragraph 2 of the G.O. Ms. No. 520, dated July 20, 1988. G.O. Ms. No. 520, dated July 20, 1988 has been superseded by G.O. Ms. No. 864, dated September 7, 1993. The language used in G.O. Ms. No. 864, dated September 7, 1993 is similar and there is no change. The Tribunal also on consideration of G.O. Ms. No. 864, dated September 7, 1993 has held that the three items fall within the meaning of electronic components under paragraph 2 of the said G.O. 6.. We, therefore see no reason to disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 548 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rpreting the provisions of law, the courts are required to keep in mind a practical approach instead of technical approach. The purpose of the enactment and the object sought to be achieved by it is required to be kept in mind. We have not been in a position to see the object of assigning distinction between the waste paper and paper in the context of the object sought to be achieved by the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act as amended by Act No. 41 of 1986. We are, therefore, of the opinion that both the appellate authorities were not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner. There was no justification for the assessing authority to subject the petitioner to assessment of tax on the paper sold by them to the industrial units for the purpose of manufacture of paper in its finished and new form. Both the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of the assessing authority and those of the appellate authorities are set aside. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 547 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... and should stand deleted. We make it clear that we are striking down only clause (a) of section 2(1). We also make it clear that under section 2(2) and 2(3) the intention of the Legislature not to pass on the burden of additional sales tax to the consumers and the reference to prosecution, shall stand unaltered. So far as section 2(1)(aa) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1996, the following words shall stand deleted, as obnoxious (1) The words in this State after the words, Principal selling or buying goods in section 2(1)(aa) as well as in Explanation to section 2(1)(aa). (2) The words other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer or a local branch of a firm or company situated outside the State in section 2(1)(aa). If the above directions are carried out the exemption granted up to rupees one hundred crores will be equally applicable to all dealers. The O.Ps. are allowed and ordered in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 546 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... a pre-judged view that the objections have to be overruled. That will be doing injustice to the parties. They must consider the objections vis-a-vis particulars given by the assessees, and see whether they can be accepted or not. This is the elementary principle which every assessing authority is supposed to embark upon. All the same we are not inclined to entertain this original petition, because the petitioner has a statutory right of appeal. We have no doubt in our mind that the appellate authority will give due consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case and give proper relief, if any. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms. The original order shall be returned to the petitioner. 2.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 3.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 19th day of June 1998. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 545 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... to secure the presence of the petitioner as a defaulter in a complaint filed before the Magistrate, if the petitioner is aggrieved he can seek relief from a Superior Court under the Criminal Procedure Code. As the issue of non-bailable warrant for arrest was not as a sentence for default to pay the tax arrears under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the various decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are not relevant to the issue. There is no case to interfere with the non-bailable warrant issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner who is a defaulter in a case pending before him, though the complaint relates to recovery of tax arrears. In the above circumstances, the original petition is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 2nd day of June, 1998. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 544 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent of such a reading of the notification the same cannot but be attributed to be not fair and arbitrary exercise of power not supported by any law. 6.. The notification is clear and categorical that retreading industries do not come within the ambit of the notification dated April 25, 1991 and in the wake of such a clarity in the notification itself, we do find some justification in the criticism of the action of the respondents as advanced by the learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. There shall be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to extend the sales tax benefit or holiday in respect of the tyre retreading business carried on by the petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 498 dated October 16, 1989 or any other relevant provisions of law as is available as on date. G.O. Ms. No. 146 dated April 25, 1991 is not applicable to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 543 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds from one State to another is part of the same contract by which right to use has been given in respect of those goods, then the principles embodied under sections 3 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act would govern the transactions. The provisions of section 5-C or Explanation (3)(d) of section 2(1)(t) of the Act cannot be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution. 20.. In view of the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of. The assessment orders which have been framed or issued are hereby quashed and the assessing authority is directed to examine the matter afresh and determine the nature of transactions and exclude those transactions which fall in the course of inter-State trade and commerce or in the course of import. In cases where only proposition notices have been issued to the petitioners, they are free to submit their detailed reply to the assessing authority who will examine the contentions in the light of the observations made above. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 542 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view that groundnut oil irrespective of the fact whether it is imported or extracted from the groundnut which has suffered tax in the State should be subjected to same rate of tax. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Commercial Agencies case 1997 107 STC 586 AIR 1998 SC 113 also supports our view though on different ground. 18.. The learned Government Pleader for the Revenue brought to our notice a number of judgments which in our view are irrelevant to the facts of the present case. 19.. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to the Full Bench by holding that groundnut oil extracted from groundnut cake which has already suffered tax should be subjected to same rate of tax as groundnut oil extracted from groundnut which has suffered tax in the State and entry 24(a) of the First Schedule to the Act is declared discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. We answer the reference accordingly. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 541 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that can be imposed for wilful non-compliance with the terms of any notice is only Rs. 5,000. As already stated, the non-compliance of each notice without valid reasons is an offence attracting the provisions of section 45A of the Act. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, I modify exhibit P3 penalty order as affirmed by exhibit P5 revision order and direct that the ends of justice will be met by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. It is stated by the petitioner that during the pendency of the first revision the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs. 10,000 against the demand under exhibit P3 penalty order. The first respondent will verify the said fact and adjust the said amount if it has already been remitted against the penalty amount. 10.. The original petition is disposed of as above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 40266 of 1997 in O.P. No. 22434 of 1997 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (6) TMI 540 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il 24, 1996, i.e., four days after the date of consignment. So, the sale bill itself is much after the date of the transport of the goods from the place of the assessee as at the check-post goods were inspected on April 21, 1996. There is no mention of the delivery notes in annexure E declaration and there is nothing to connect with 250 bags of cashewnuts involved in this case and the declaration. In such circumstances, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings concurrently made by the authorities that there was an attempt to evade tax in the transport of the goods without documents. The appellate authority also considered the justification of quantum of penalty imposed and for valid reasons it was reduced. The authorities below have applied their mind and correctly imposed the penalty under section 29A(4). There is no merit in the revision petition and the revision petition is dismissed. C.M.P. No. 3988 of 1997 in T.R.C. No. 270 of 1997 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (6) TMI 539 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... use the investment for the land came out of the initial unexplained capital of Rs.49,989. Therefore, on the same footing he has disallowed the amounts payable in respect of LIC policies because the premium paid for these policies had, according to the competent authority, come out of income derived illegally. However, the forfeiture of movable items like, cash on hand amounting to Rs. 4,256 and cash in Indian Overseas Bank, Kilakarai, to the extent of Rs. 289.65 is set aside as these two items are held to be too petty to deserve forfeiture. Apart from the setting aside of forfeiture of cash on hand and cash in Indian Overseas Bank, for the balance forfeiture of the properties, the order of the competent authority is held to be justified and is confirmed. The appellant is at liberty to approach the competent authority for the option of payment of fine in lieu of forfeiture in respect of house properties under forfeiture. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to this extent.
-
1998 (6) TMI 538 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
For relevant assessment years, assessee – karta of HUF had withdrawn certain amount an account of household expenses - Whether since department had not discharged onus in establishing that assessee had met his household expenses from income from undisclosed sources, penalty could not be levied
-
1998 (6) TMI 537 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton fabrics processed without aid of power - Exemption under Notification No. 130/82-C.E.
-
1998 (6) TMI 536 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Revision/Review - Reviewable order ... ... ... ... ..... f bill of entry in accordance with the same and ultimately, by way of out-of-charge order under Section 47, passed by the proper officer in the docks. rdquo The Respondent rsquo s contention is accepted and upheld. So the Board had no power to review the Executive order of the Collector of Customs. Consequently, the direction issued thereunder is not legal and valid, and the application under section 129D(4) of Customs Act, 1,962 is not tenable. So the point raised is answered in that regard in the Negative. It is not necessary to consider the case on merits as not survives. So we pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons indicated above, Board was not competent to review the Executive order of Collector Customs under Section 129D (1) of Customs Act, 1962 and the application filed under section 129D (4) of the said Act is not tenable. The contention of the Respondent is upheld in that regard. The application is rejected and cross-objection is disposed off, consequently.
-
1998 (6) TMI 535 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Permission for removal - Adjudication - Availability of notification or procedure - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Grounds - Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs
-
1998 (6) TMI 534 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... f one day but that they had a valid explanation. He submits that if the Commissioner had heard them in person they could have explained the reasons, we submits that the order has resulted in the denial of natural justice. 3. emsp We have heard Shri A.R.S. Kumar the ld. JDR for the Revenue. 4. emsp We find that the delay of one day could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). If he so desired, he could have asked the appellants to explain the delay. Instead of choosing either option, he has dismissed the appeal. We set aside this order, specifically condone the delay of one day and direct the Commissioner to hear the appellants on merits.
-
1998 (6) TMI 533 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... at they should pay the amount demanded by the Asstt. Commissioner, he would be triggering another round of appeals and the question may arise as to the appropriate forum where such proceedings have to be taken. It was stated by Sh. Ali that against that demand an appeal would lie to Commissioner (Appeals). This is a debatable issue, the alternative view being that the Asstt. Commissioner would be carrying out the directions of the Commissioner and hence it has to be treated as the latter rsquo s order appealable to the Tribunal only. 5. emsp Taking into account the prima facie aspects of the case we are inclined to direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of one month from today and report compliance. Subject to their doing so the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty is waived for the purpose of hearing of the appeal and their recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Matter should come up for reporting compliance on 8-7-1998.
........
|
