|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 509 Records
-
1998 (8) TMI 569 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the bald expressions without being supported by material facts. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in the air and the court is duty bound to consider all the aspects of the matter including the public good at large. In considering the applicability of the doctrine, the court is concerned with the fundamental principles of equity. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners have basically focussed against the order of assessment and collaterally attacked the Industrial Policy. On perusal of the materials on record also, I do not find any infirmity in the order of assessment including the order dated December 4, 1992, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, in the revision petitions requiring interference from this Court. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and thus the same stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand) only. The interim order dated July 28, 1993, stands vacated. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 568 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n question, i.e., 1983-84 and 1984-85 did not exceed the specified quantum. The order of penalty under section 16(8) of the Act aide annexure 4, for the admitted non-filing of the return for the period 1992-93 or part thereof, however, does not require any interference. 10.. It is open to the petitioner to file a fresh application for cancellation of registration under section 14 of the Act in form VII. If it does so, the same should be disposed of as early as possible in accordance with law. 11.. For the reasons stated above the orders of assessment and/or the demand notice contained in annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition and annexure B to the counter-affidavit are quashed and the matter is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Ranchi for fresh consideration giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. AFTAB ALAM, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 567 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... asons, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, in so far as it relates to the taxability of interstate sales, is set aside. The case is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal with the direction that it will record a finding of fact whether form C was issued on March 29, 1988 to the assessee whether the assesses failed to produce the same before the assessing officer on account of the same being misplaced and whether form C was produced by the assessee before the first appellate authority only after having recovered the same. If the Appellate Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not producing form C , then the question of taxability of inter-State sales will be decided by the Appellate Tribunal afresh, taking into consideration the form C in accordance with law. The Appellate Tribunal will be at liberty to remit the case back to the assessing officer, if it so desires. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 566 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to conclude that there was a suppression in the purchase turnover for the purpose of rejecting the books of accounts. We are not examining the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the inspecting team. These two cases are therefore, not in any way applicable to the point in issue before us. Similarly, the case reported in 1972 83 ITR 508 (Ker) (Ponkunnam Traders v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam) has no relevance for the point in issue. In that case, the order of the Income-tax Officer was held to be a nullity because the petitioner had not been given any opportunity to object to the procedure adopted by the I.T.O. In the present case, petitioner was given full opportunity by the assessing authority by issuing proposition notices and after affording due opportunity, the order of assessment was passed. 13.. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision petition. The petition is dismissed but without order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 565 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ight of these decisions the taking of delivery of the goods by the buyer in a particular point cannot be a decisive factor for inter-State sale. In this case, as per the agreement the contract of performance could be completed only in Andaman which is an another State, after the tests and analyses of the goods transported from Tamil Nadu and till then the goods were lying at the risk of the seller, the lower Appellate Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that it is an inter-State sale. The learned Government Advocate is unable to cite any decision to differ from the view taken in the decisions cited above. We find no merit in this revision. In the result the T.C. is dismissed, confirming the order of the lower Appellate Tribunal. 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 11th day of August, 1998. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 564 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... able claims, stocks, shares, securities or postal stationery sold by the Postal Department. 2.. Goods under the said provisions includes every kind or class of movable goods but excludes goods or thing attached to or fastened anything permanently to the earth and which under the contract of sale are not to be severed. From the findings arrived at by the Tribunal it is obvious that there was no agreement between the parties that the lessee shall be entitled to sever the goods fastened to the earth. In the instant case, the subject-matter of the lease was the woollen factory and the same was leased out as a unit and not as an individual piece of plant and machinery. In that view of the matter there was no transfer of the goods as envisaged under the Trade Tax Act. In the premises I upheld the order passed by the Tribunal and dismiss the present revision. 3.. In the result this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 563 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thin four years from the date of passing of the order in revision. With respect, we say that the conclusion drawn by them from this judgment, is again on a wrong premises. Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court which was under challenge in the said case by affirming the finding recorded by the High Court that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not made on the date it purported to have been made and the same could have been made after the expiry of the period of four years. There is no finding in this judgment that the proceedings can either be initiated by issuing a notice within four years of the passing of the order sought to be revised or that the proceedings must conclude within four years of the passing of the order which was sought to be revised. Relying upon the view taken by this Court in the earlier judgments and for the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 562 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing works contract and that there is no sale between the customer and itself. The learned Judges rejected the contention and held that there is a sale between the Hindustan Shipyard Limited and its customer. The facts in this case are distinguishable to the facts of the case on hand and the principle laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the HCL is also taxed in respect of the quantity of cement sold to the assessee, which is the subject-matter of appeal. 7.. Mr. Narender Setty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assesseerespondent supported the order of the Tribunal. 8.. Under those circumstances, we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the sales by the assessee to its customers in respect of the quantity of cement purchased from HCL does not amount to first sale and to that extent it is exempted from sales tax as being second sales. The tax revision case is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 561 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pellate authority, we see no error in the order of the appellate authority which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the commission sales as set out by the assessee. 6.. The next question for consideration before the appellate authority was whether the assessee rightly claimed 471 bags of urid weighing 939.77 quintals as normal loss on cleaning and polishing. The appellate authority was of the view that the assessee miserably failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the loss before the assessing officer or even in the appeal. This being the state of affairs the appellate authority rejected the claim of loss as set up by the assessee and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the same finding of the appellate authority was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. On the fact situation of this case no exception can be taken to the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. Both the T.R.Cs. therefore, fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 560 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal Sales Tax Act, 1978, could be levied on inter-State sales or purchases of goods in regard to which no notification has been framed under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, fixing a specific lower rate in the public interest. The cardinal principle of law is that the Supreme Court does not make law but it simply declares what the law was. The Supreme Court having held that additional sales tax could be levied, it follows that additional sales tax was chargeable from the assessee, which had escaped assessment. Upon escapement of additional sales tax which has chargeable from the assessee, the assessing officer was right in law in initiating reassessment proceedings. We, therefore, see no force in the submission of counsel for the assessee that the assessing officer misapplied the decision of the Supreme Court in Aysha Hosiery Factory (P.) Ltd. 1992 85 STC 106 to the instant case. In the result, the tax revision case fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 559 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 1981 48 STC 466 (SC), on a different proposition having been overruled by J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 1994 94 STC 422 (SC). 7.. On the second contention, it is to be stated that section 23A of the Act provides for reduction of interest in certain cases. Three conditions are to be fulfilled for getting the benefit under this section (i) a person must be in arrears to pay tax (ii) a notice of demand in respect of them should have been served on him on or before March 31, 1995 (iii) the entire arrears of tax should have been paid on or before December 31, 1997. Since the last two conditions are not satisfied by the petitioner in this case, he is not entitled to the benefit of this said section. For the above reasons I do not find any ground warranting interference with the orders passed by the authorities below. Hence the original petition is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 26210 of 1998 in O.P. No. 14810 of 1998K dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 558 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assed or proceeding recorded by an Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (4-C) of section 14 may, within thirty days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed 5.. A reading of section 19 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, makes it clear that it is only a dealer who is competent to file an appeal against any proceeding or order of an authority. It is undisputed that the 3rd respondent is not a dealer, therefore, he is not entitled to file an appeal against the order of the 1st respondent granting registration in favour of the petitioner. Since he is not entitled to file an appeal, any order passed by the 2nd respondent is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order dated July 25, 1996 is quashed. 6.. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. 7.. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. Writ petition allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 557 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... berately and knowing full-well of his obligation in not furnishing the true and correct accounts. It is not possible to accept the contention that he has acted bona fide without knowing the legal position. 8.. Therefore, the conclusion and finding rendered by all the three authorities are to be confirmed. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed appears to be on the higher side. Hence I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs which has already been remitted by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceeding. The impugned orders are modified only to that extent. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in remitting even the tax due. If it is so, the department is at liberty to charge the penal interest for the delay in payment of tax. Original petition is disposed of as indicated above. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (8) TMI 556 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the petitioner and the nature of the discrepancies which are of trivial nature, we are of the considered view that though technically the book version of the petitioner could be rejected as the day book was not posted up-to-date, can in no case addition at the rate of 5 per cent be sustained. On taxable turnover, we are of the view that 1 per cent addition would be quite reasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 6.. Our attention was then drawn by the assessee to ground No. 11, raised in the appeal memo filed before the Tribunal, on which no finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. So far as this ground is concerned, the assessee may approach the Appellate Tribunal by way of rectification application in accordance with law. In the result, both the revisions are partly allowed reducing the addition of 5 per cent to 1 per cent on the taxable turnover for the period commencing from August 20, 1987 to March 31, 1988. Petitions allowed in part.
-
1998 (8) TMI 555 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th products are chargeable to tax, reduction will not be available for the amount of tax levied on the purchases of raw material. Coconut oil and coconut oil cake both are simultaneously produced and, therefore, from the angle of drafting, the use of conjunction and is necessary. The Explanation does not indicate that if coconut oil cake a by-product is not chargeable to tax, then tax leviable on coconut oil will not be reduced by the amount of tax levied on the copra or coconut, from which the coconut oil was produced. We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellate Tribunal misinterpreted the clear language, employed in the Explanation. The assessee will, therefore, be entitled to the reduction of tax leviable on coconut oil by the amount of tax levied on the purchase of the raw material, from which coconut oil was produced. 6.. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal to this extent is set aside. Petition allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 554 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P11 demand notice was not seen or adverted to in the impugned judgment by the learned single Judge. It leaves no room for doubt that proceedings for recovery of penal interest were duly recorded in exhibit P11 demand notice by means of the note appended thereto. 7.. We, therefore, do not enter into the controversy whether there was any order within the meaning of section 36, but we conclude the case saying that surely there are proceedings recorded within the meaning of section 36, which are fully reflected in the note, appended to exhibit P11 demand notice. We therefore, hold that revision was maintainable against the proceedings recorded in exhibit P11 demand notice itself under section 36 of the Act. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13th January, 1994 and exhibit P12 order passed by the revisional authority are set aside and the case is remitted to the revisional authority to decide the matter afresh on merits. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 553 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing that cinder ash was a coal, as such, the same was liable to tax at the rate of 4 per cent only. The department preferred an appeal before the Tax Tribunal which also confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the cinder ash as sold by the assessee has sufficient amount of burning capacity and the same may be treated as low quality coal. The cinder ash may be used in small workshops as coal. Further Tribunal has held that a certificate from recognized institute was also submitted by the assessee showing that the cinder ash contained 37.59 per cent burning capacity, hence, cinder ash is to be considered as low quality coal. The aforesaid finding made by the Tribunal is a finding of facts, as such, I find no material to interfere with the finding of facts made by the Tribunal which is final fact-finding body. 2.. In that view of the matter, the revision application stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 552 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r as noticed earlier the offer to compound had come from the petitioner after the respondent had proposed to initiate prosecution proceedings on the basis of the findings in the course of inspection of record and verification of the stocks. The offer made included a voluntary payment of Rs. 25,000 towards the tax, which it is obvious would be properly adjusted at the time of final assessment proceedings, besides a sum of Rs. 37,500 towards the composition fee. It was not therefore a case where on a spot recovery was made under compulsion or coercion by the officers as appears to have happened in most of the cases referred to by Mr. Gandhi. Such cases therefore stand on a totally different footing and cannot be called in aid to reverse the composition in cases where the same has been properly made. 16.. In the result there is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand) only. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 551 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e in the purchase turnover as such transportation alone makes the passing of property in the sugarcane sold by the grower to the assessee-mills complete. For the reasons as above, point Nos. 3 to 9 are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees-sugar mills. In view of the above binding judgments of the Madras High Court as well as the reasons given by us while discussing the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh and the Kerala High Courts, we hold that the subsidy claimed and received by the petitioners from the Government of India, certainly forms part of the turnover and therefore, assessable to sales tax. The prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot therefore be granted. The T.Ps. fail and they are accordingly 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 3rd day of August, 1998. Petitions dismissed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 550 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te. 19.. We will now examine the fall-out of these discussions on the case in hand. Firstly, there was no excess collection of any amount purporting to be tax in excess of the rate stipulated under the Act. The situation was that at the relevant time operation of section 5-C of the Act, which cast the liability, stood stayed as far as the petitioner was concerned. If so, the collection made by the petitioner is not collection of tax or an amount purported to be tax within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Act. It can at best be a contingency deposit whose ownership always dwelt with the purchaser (depositor) and the dealer holding the sum only as a trustee. In such an event, there is no contravention of section 18 of the Act in which event alone section 18-AA can be invoked. 20.. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders annexures D, D1 and D2 are accordingly quashed. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
........
|
