|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 847 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of the admitted tax and allowed the appeal-application to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provision of the said proviso. 6.. We, therefore, find no ground to hold that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal-application for non-payment of admitted tax, because in terms of the said proviso the appellate admitted tax is paid. On identical ground the order of the Board suffers from no illegality. The plea that the Board on an earlier occasion in an identical situation allowed the applicant s prayer and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for hearing on merit, is of no consequence because the same will not alter the legal position that exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate authority in hearing an appeal under section 12(1) on merit is subjected to payment of admitted tax. 7.. In the result, the instant applications under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Applications dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 846 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... same to the State Government. However, we would like to make it clear that in respect of cement, steel, etc., which may be supplied by T.T.D. itself for execution of the works contract, no tax is liable to be deducted at source because there is no sale involved and even if there is sale, such sale by T.T.D. is exempt from tax. That apart, we would like to clarify that the labour component of works contract cannot be subjected to tax. Such component can be dissected as per the provisions contained in rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 governing the deduction of value of labour charges. 5.. The above principles shall be kept in view while deducting tax at source from the petitioner from out of the bills payable to him in respect of the works contract entrusted to him. 6.. It is made clear that the interim stay earlier granted is vacated. 7.. The writ petition is disposed of with the above clarifications and directions. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (12) TMI 845 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e. Thus, we find that the conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal that the sales took place on the dates of appropriation, namely, during 1983-84 in respect of the turnover of Rs. 32,52,902 is quite in order. As regards unfructified sale, there is clear non-compliance of the conditions contemplated in section 4-D of the Act and therefore the rejection of the claim is in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue Taxes), Ernakulam v. Motor Industries Co. 1983 53 STC 48. The learned counsel for the petitioner also did not press this claim pertaining to unfructified sale. 10.. In fine, there is no case to interfere and accordingly the tax revision case 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 22nd day of December, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 844 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pular meaning in the context and should normally be accepted. 7.. It is to be noted that the burner and its attachments are the important parts of the stove. A stove can be put to use even without a body or a fixed metallic cover. The stainless steel body of the stove is only an accessory which gives more convenience, beauty and protection to the stove. Undisputedly, the burner, pipe and knob attached to the pipes are all made of either cast iron or brass or other alloys. Value wise undisputedly the burner stands at a higher footing, though the learned assessing officer recorded a finding that the value wise also the stainless steel component is more. It is a finding contrary to the accepted position. If the common parlance test is applied, a stove cannot be said to be a stainless steel product. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the entry applicable is Sl. No. 119 and not 182, as held by the taxing authority. The revision is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 843 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al s order in an appeal arising out of the A.P.G.S.T. assessment does not even contain a whisper or hint that any part of the turnover would attract tax under the C.S.T. Act. By figment of imagination, the first respondent proceeded to revise the assessment under the C.S.T. Act and the order of the Tribunal is used as a cloak to raise a fanciful demand of Rs. 1.17 crores. It would be travesty of justice if the impugned assessment is allowed to stand. It is one of the extraordinary cases where we are called upon to exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to prevent further harassment to the assessee. It is not at all just and appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the assessment is quashed. However, as the petitioner has its share of blame, we refrain from awarding costs though it would otherwise have been a fit case for awarding costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 842 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... f the Second Schedule to the Act by the assessing authority is in order. Thus, we find that the conclusions reached by us having regard to legislative entry and the Supreme Court decision as indicated supra are in consonance with the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Arvind Trading Company 1995 98 STC 288, though not with that of the Madras High Court reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons 1994 92 STC 262. Accordingly we hold that the orders of the Appellate Tribunal are erroneous in law and therefore we set aside the same and restore the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In fine, the tax revision cases are allowed. 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 20th day of December, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 841 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t petition. 32.. In the present matter this Court is fully empowered to issue writ of certiorari for the purpose of correcting orders passed by taxing authorities. In fact the prayer has been made by the petitioners in the writ petition for issuing the writ of certiorari in prayer clause for the purpose of quashing orders annexures D , G and H . Thus, this petition is hereby allowed, and those orders D , G and H are hereby quashed by issuing writ of certiorari. It is made clear here that the petitioners are liable to pay tax on the turnover which was disclosed by them as to the tune of Rs. 92,69,861 and they have paid the tax on such turnover to the tune of Rs. 5,28,881. This declaration, assessment and payment of tax is not hereby touched at all. 33.. The petitioners to bear cost of this litigation as well as the respondents, because the entire matter seems to be misdirected on account of misinterpretation of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 840 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... der and Co.) which related to the powers of Appellate Tribunal to review its order, on the basis of the facts and that highly disputable question of law is involved in this case wherein detailed arguments are needed to establish the point of law, we find that there is absolutely no case is resort to rectification of the order of the Appellate Tribunal by exercising its power under section 55 of the Act. Thus, from any angle, we find that there is absolutely no case to find fault with the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal in rejecting the application for rectification under section 55 of the Act for the reasons indicated by us. Thus, we find that there is no case to interfere and accordingly the original petition is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that order on being produced be punctually be observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 20th day of December, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 839 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he claim of sales return or unfructified sale, on the basis of the materials available in the records, it is quite clear that the disallowed claim relates to unfructified sale only. Therefore, the specific statutory provision under section 4-D of the Act will prevail over rule 5-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Thus, we find that the claim has been rightly rejected for having not fulfilled the condition contemplated under section 4-D of the Act which is in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 53 STC 48 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Motor Industries Co.). Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the tax revision case 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 20th day of December, 1999. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 838 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sioner purported to rely on the observations made by this Court while disposing of the stay application. The Tribunal rightly commented that the revisional authority extracted from the High Court s order the contentions advanced on behalf of the purchasers from the appellant and treated them as the observations made by the High Court. The Tribunal commented that it amounted to misreading of the order of the of the High Court. The Tribunal rightly commented that the High Court only observed that if the tax on differential value was not collected from the appellant, it did not preclude the authorities concerned from collecting the tax from manufacturers. Obviously, such an observation by High Court does not amount to declaration that the respondent-company which is a manufacturer is liable to pay the tax, if the tax is not otherwise legally due from the respondent. Hence, we see no ground to admit the T.R.C. The T.R.C. is dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 837 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed to in clause (b) of sub-section (6) within a period of two calendar years from the end of the period for which assessment is to be made. In absence of any violation of the provisions as have been provided under section 27 of the Adhiniyam which relates to assessment of tax, and as the assessment is made within the limitation, no direction can be issued to the assessing officer to take up the assessment of a particular year. That lies solely within his discretion. Thus, I do not find any merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is observed that the petitioner may make a prayer before the assessing officer to take up the assessment proceeding in a chronological manner and in that event the assessment officer may deal with the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law and in exercise of proper discretion. 6.. The writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 836 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .. When meaning of a term is to be examined in the context of imposing tax on sale or purchase of commodity, it has to be examined what the commodity is known in ordinary commercial parlance in the context of sale and purchase. Tax being not on manufacturing activity, the technical process of manufacturing may not always provide true answer. The question of examining the meaning of mineral water or other specie of water sold in the market has to be examined in the context whether the commodity sold in the market is a drinking water or something more than or other than drinking water. If this test is applied, it cannot be gainsaid that the mineral water is sold and transacted purely as drinking water. It is neither sold for the taste or for any other medicinal or other use as is commonly associated with distilled water or aerated water . 24.. In view of the above discussion, these revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 835 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch penal event occurred in the assessment year 1982-83 then no penalty could be imposed. The matter for the assessment year 1982-83 therefore, deserves to be remanded. 31.. As regards the assessment year 1983-84 in view of the discussions made above it is held that the revisionist is not liable to pay any amount of penalty. The revision for the assessment year 1983-84 deserves to be allowed. 32.. Sales Tax Revision No. 1476 of 1992 Assessment year 1982-83 is hereby allowed. The order of the Tribunal is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the question of fact as indicated above and decide the Second Appeal afresh in the light of the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 33.. Sales Tax Revision No. 1511 of 1992 Assessment year 1983-84 is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Any amount of penalty paid or deposited by the revisionist shall be refunded in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 834 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ods as defined under section 2 and also under the definition of goods as given in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which was considered in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. 1958 9 STC 353 (SC). In these circumstances, we are of the view that the levy of tax was not proper. There is another point also that the amount of Rs. 44,000 received was not only in respect of the leasing of machinery but also for the factory premises and it was a composite agreement. Tax has been levied on the entire amounts on the ground that the lease amount cannot be bifurcated. This approach of the taxing authorities is also not proper in view of the decision given by the apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. 1972 29 STC 474 where the composite amount was considered not entitled to be split up into two. If the agreement is indivisible then it cannot be permitted to be taxed in its entirety. The revision is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 833 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 4, 1988 and hold that for both the assessment years the order of the assessing authority shall stand restored in respect of the disputed transactions. To be more exact for the year 1976-77 the taxable turnover shall be Rs. 5,34,18,977.00 at 5 per cent subject to the deduction of wastages as already indicated in our order. For the assessment year 1982-83 the taxable turnover shall include a turnover of Rs. 5,27,83,418 at 5 per cent single point subject to the deduction for wastage as already indicated. Consequently, the Tax Revision Cases 212 of 1993 corresponding to T.C. (R) 3637 of 1997 and Tax Case No. 215 of 1993 corresponding to T.C. (R) No. 3640 of 1997 shall stand allowed as above. 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 20th day of December, 1999. Petition allowed
-
1999 (12) TMI 832 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A reproduced hereinabove suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination by carving out an artificial classification by dividing the cinema houses into two based on the criterion whether they receive or do not receive benefit of incentive scheme propounded by the State Government?
Whether such classification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved?
Held that:- In the case at hand it will be seen that at the point of time when the impugned provision was enacted, that is in the year 1992, there existed two classes of cinema owners: one, those who were receiving grant-in-aid under some incentive scheme enunciated by the State Government; and two, such cinema owners as were not receiving such grant-in-aid.
The Full Bench has during the course of its judgment observed, and rightly in our opinion, that if the benefit conferred by the impugned amendment was made general, i.e., available to all the cinema owners then the cinema owners operating in rural area would have secured double benefit-one by way of grant-in-aid and other by way of recovering maintenance charges from the cinema-goers exempt from payment of entertainment tax and there is nothing wrong in the Legislature having chosen not to confer such double benefit on the cinema owners already enjoying benefit of an incentive scheme of the State Government, Moreover, it cannot be lost sight of mat the incentive schemes releasing the grant-in-aid were optional. There was no compulsion on the cinema owners to opt for the incentive scheme and have grant-in-aid released to them. Such option was available at the commencement of the scheme and remained available throughout. Such of the cinema owners as felt that the fixation of Rs. 2.50 or Rs.5 as a ceiling on fee for admission was not beneficial to them and they would stand to benefit by opting out from the incentive scheme and availing the benefit of recovering charges for maintenance conferred by the 1992 amendment were always and at any time free to do so. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the Division Bench was not right in passing the order dated 10.7.1995 striking down the amendment impugned before it.
-
1999 (12) TMI 831 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng Officer to examine the year of allowability. We have considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that all the debts were in the nature of either bad debts, short recoveries or amounts disputed by the parties for wrong billings made by the assessee. Further, while deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,17,448, the Tribunal observed that details with regard to the amounts written off were furnished before the Assessing Officer and that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim after scrutiny. In view of these findings by the Tribunal, we see no reason to have the debts amounting to Rs. 15,779 re-examined. Accordingly, it is directed that the deduction of Rs. 15,778 be allowed in this year itself. Before parting, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the erudite submissions made on behalf of both the sides and assisting the Bench in arriving at the decision arrived at by it. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 830 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 60 2. 1992-93 73,330 3. 1993-94 52,000 4. 1994-95 30,000 5. 1995-96 35,910 As already discussed the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence or material on record to show that the assessee has spent the above mentioned amounts for household drawings. In the absence of evidence, material or information in possession of the Assessing Officer the estimated inadequate drawings cannot be considered as undisclosed income in view of the specific provisions of section 158BB of the Income-tax Act. It is stated by the assessee rsquo s counsel that the assessee was a bachelor and, therefore, his drawings are reasonable. We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer is not justified in treating the estimated inadequate drawings as undisclosed income in view of section 158BB of the Income-tax Act. As all the undisclosed income assessed by the Assessing Officer are deleted the ground relating to determination of undisclosed income are allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 829 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT LARGER BENCH
EXEMPTIONS — LIFE SAVING DRUGS — DRUGS ENUMERATED IN NOTIFICATION — THAT IS TO SAY, MEANING OF — SAME DRUGS SOLD UNDER BRAND NAMES - INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTES — OBJECT OF ENACTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED.
-
1999 (12) TMI 828 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ever, the said FDRs would be deemed to be frozen and would be released only after the issue about the ownership of the FDRs has been finally decided in the income-tax proceedings of the Anand Group. The FDRs will be renewed from time to time if necessary. 3. The financial burden to be suffered by the bank in complying with our direction No. 2 above, shall be borne equally by the then chief manager, A. L. Dham, who was responsible for encashing the FDRs without a written order and the then branch manager/managers who were responsible for opening the FDR accounts without filling in the proper forms. In no case the loss shall be debited to the account of the bank. However, we may clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the issue about the ownership of the FDRs. Therefore, nothing observed by us in this order will prejudice the case of either the Income-tax Department or the Anand group in any proceedings. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
........
|
