|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 617
... ...
... ... ..... s only because of the exemption notification that the tax is not levied. Therefore, when at the end of the financial year an assessment is made for the entire year, the turnover for the entire year has to be taken into account. In fact the proviso refers to this total turnover of the dealer for a year . Section 2(t) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act says that the word year means the financial year. No doubt this definition is subject to the context being otherwise. 3.. In this view of the matter we accept the stand taken by the revenue and allow this tax revision case restoring the orders of the assessing authority and A.A.C. and setting aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. The tax revision case is allowed in the above manner. 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 26th day of March, 1999. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 616
... ...
... ... ..... h was followed in Ram Dass Trust v. Damodardas 1967 Raj LW 273 and the case of Kansara Abdulrehman Sadruddin v. Trustees of the Maniar Jamat, Ahmedabad AIR 1968 Guj 184 at 187 see serial No. 13 at pages 66 and 67 of N. Suryanaraya Iyer s The Indian Trust Act Fourth Edition, Second Reprint, 1997 . Therefore, under the law the trustees, N.M. Jain (applicant No. 2), and P.D. Surana are owners of the business under the trade name of M/s. Power Sales and Service. That being the correct position, realisation of taxes and penalty can be made and continued against the trustees who are under the law, the owners of the aforesaid business. 10.. In the result, the application is dismissed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to correct the order of assessment by substituting the designation of N.M. Jain as trustee in place of partner . This direction is given merely for removing the innocuous error. No order is made for cost. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 615
... ...
... ... ..... dated January 25, 1999. The respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner-company. Even now we feel that the matter cannot be foreclosed. It is still open to the respondents to look into the matter and see whether the interest of the revenue can be protected by entering into a new agreement with the subsidiary company after getting a fresh eligibility certificate from SIPCOT. Our suggestions is based upon the promotion of new industries in backward areas which seems to be the object of the Government Order No. 500 dated May 14, 1990. Leaving the doors open for fresh negotiations we enforce the terms of the agreement strictly by rejecting all the O.Ps. All the O.Ps. are therefore dismissed with the above observations. 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 17th day of March, 1999. Original petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 614
... ...
... ... ..... s accepted then it would mean that importer or exporter would apply to all other hotelier, restaurateur, manufacturer or dealer in liquor and beer. That is not the intention of the Legislature. The importer and exporter by themselves constitute a class and therefore it is not necessary that a hotelier must be an importer or exporter, only then he will fall under this clause. 3.. The other contention which is raised is that all the dealers have not been treated similarly and thus there is violation of article 14 of the Constitution. If the Legislature has fixed the limit for liability of tax differently, then it is not for this Court to go to the wisdom of the Legislature. Different classes of dealers are being treated differently and they constitute a class by themselves. All the dealers do not constitute one class. The classification which has been made cannot be considered violative of article 14 of the Constitution. Petition have no force is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 613
... ...
... ... ..... ghts in the property. 6.. The learned Judge, in our opinion, erroneously proceeded to hold that sale dated February 23, 1998 is valid and conforming to the provisions of section 50, inasmuch as there was a valid notice for sale dated January 25, 1997. There may be a valid notice for sale dated January 25, 1997. But the fact remains that there was no sale within the period of 60 days prior to February 23, 1998 and, therefore, sale dated February 23, 1998 could not have divested the appellant of her rights in the property and that cannot be said to have stood acquired by the Government. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated February 12, 1999 and exhibit P3 and consequential orders are set aside. The respondents are free to put up the property again for sale if the appellant does not pay the outstanding amount. The appellant, however, will not alienate the property, until the outstanding amount is paid to the respondents. Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 612
... ...
... ... ..... General Sales Tax Act to rectify the orders passed in C.T.M.P. No. 121 of 1996 in another petition. There is no mistake in the order of the Appellate Tribunal for rectification. Only when there is mistake apparent and the face of the record section 55 can be invoked to rectify the mistake. As the Appellate Tribunal has found that there is no provisions to restore the petitions, which themselves were filed for restoration of the main appeal, there is no question of any rectification under section 55 of the Act. As we find that the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the proceedings are perfectly correct, they cannot be interfered with in these original petitions. Therefore, all these three original petitions are 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 9th day of March, 1999. Original petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 611
... ...
... ... ..... colours could be at the rate of 8 per cent as per the entry 138 of the First Schedule till June 30, 1982 and thereafter at the rate of 5 per cent multi-point till the levy of multi-point was taken away. With the above direction the levy of tax for first sale of acromine colours could not be at the rate of 10 per cent under entry 110 of the First Schedule. On the other hand, the levy of tax could be under entry 138 of the First Schedule and thereafter at 5 per cent multi-point. With the abovesaid directions the assessing authority has to levy tax on the first sale of acromine colours for the assessment years 1981-82, 982-83 and 1983-84 in respect of all these three revision petitions. These three revision petitions are accordingly 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 the Tribunal on the 25th day of March, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 610
... ...
... ... ..... ot attracted for the purpose of levy of purchase tax on the purchases of jute sticks by the applicants from such cultivators. The assessing authority, thus, erred in levying purchase tax on the applicants on such purchases. 8.. In view of the above findings there is no necessity, as we have already observed, for going into the issue as to whether jute sticks come within the entry No. 32 of Schedule I or not. 9.. In the result, the orders of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and the Board so far they relate to levy of purchase tax on purchase of jute stick and payment of interest of such tax are set aside. The rest part of the assessment and the orders of the respondent No. 2 and of the Board thereon remain uninterfered. 10.. In the result, the application is allowed in view of the findings above. The assessing authority shall modify the assessment order in terms of the above observation. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 609
... ...
... ... ..... nce, the application is allowed. The seizure of 14 boxes of bearings on February 12, 1998 is quashed. For the said reason the subsequent order imposing penalty is also quashed. The order of this Tribunal dated February 26, 1998 returning the seized bearings is made absolute and the security, if any, furnished in terms of the said order in cash be refunded within three weeks from this order. If the security has been furnished by way of bank guarantee the same shall stand terminated. 8.. We make no order as to costs. 9.. After the judgment is delivered Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative, prays for staying the operation of this order for eight weeks. None appears on behalf of the applicant in this case for raising the objection to the instant prayer. Since according to Mr. Goswami a considerable amount of revenue is involved in this instant case, the instant prayer for stay is allowed for four weeks. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 608
... ...
... ... ..... of the Rules. In case, the assessing officer was of the view that any tax was payable he should have served a notice of demand and made assessment in terms of rule 25(3)(a) and (b) of the Rules. But no such notice of demand or assessment has been made as yet. The penalty imposed under the impugned orders dated December 18, 1997 for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are therefore beyond the jurisdiction under section 23(1)(f) of the Act and are liable to be quashed. 6.. I therefore quash the impugned orders dated December 18, 1997 imposing penalty on the petitioners. But I make it clear that liability of the petitioner to tax on the containers in which goods were sold will be decided by the authorities in accordance with the judgment and order dated March 10, 1999 of this Court in Civil Rule No. 2526 of 1998. 7.. The writ petition allowed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 607
... ...
... ... ..... f section 47 does not indicate that composition of offence is only a shield against prosecution. On well-accepted principles to be followed while interpreting penal provision or taxing statute also I am not able to accept the contentions of the learned Government Pleader that after compounding an offence and accepting maximum compounding fee, for the very same offence penalty can be imposed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when once the matter is compounded under section 47 no prosecution or penalty proceedings can be initiated for the very same offence. Since petitioner has compounded the offence and department has accepted the maximum compounding fee of rupees one lakh, no further penalty under section 47 can be imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, exhibit P1 penalty order and exhibits P2 and P3 revisional orders confirming the same are set aside. The original petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4510 of 1996 in O.P. No. 2610 of 1996 I dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 606
... ...
... ... ..... o consideration of the quantity of the goods against each bill is primarily for the purpose of calculation of the total subsidy or compensation required to be paid by the OCC. This is a mere oblique manner of calculation. Under the guidelines the refinery is entitled to compensation or subsidy on the quantum of goods sold and not on the quantum of their production and as such the bills are the only source to find out the total quantity of goods sold by BRPL. We find no force in this plea. 15.. In view of our foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the amount received by BRPL from OCC being the difference of the retention price and refinery price is in the nature of subsidy or compensation and these are not liable for taxation either under the Taxation Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. We find no merit in these appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 605
... ...
... ... ..... Srinivasa Poultry s case 1999 114 STC 67 (AP). 8.. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the petitioner paid the tax without passing on the burden to the consumer. There is no undisputable material on this point before us. Assuming for the sake of argument that the burden was not passed on to the consumers still then, the petitioner s case does not become any stronger in view of the legal position stated above. It is only when declaration of unconstitutionality is obtained any one person in respect of tax, that the other persons also perhaps may be entitled to take advantage of the declaration of law. We are not faced with that situation and it is not necessary to dilate on it any further. 9.. For the reasons given above, we are of the firm view that the writ petitions must fail as the assessment as against the petitioners had become final in June, 1996 and July, 1997. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 604
... ...
... ... ..... les of the petitioner of unmachined cast iron castings cannot be subjected to tax as unclassified item or taxable under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. In the assessment year, the assessing authority has not considered the transaction of machined and unmachined cast iron separately. The assessment orders are accordingly quashed and assessing authority is directed to treat the sale of unmachined cast iron castings as that of declared commodities falling under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and covered by entry 2 of Fourth schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. 12.. In view of the above explanation regarding the scope of proviso with regard to machined cast iron castings as held in Bengal Iron Corporation case 1993 90 STC 47 (SC), and further clarified in Vasantham Foundry case 1995 99 STC 87 (SC), I do not consider it necessary to declare the provision as ultra vires State Legislative. 13.. Petition is allowed with above observations. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 603
... ...
... ... ..... .P. No. 690 of 1997 is substantially allowed. As regards T.P. No. 894 of 1997, the order dated November 30, 1989 is quashed inasmuch as the revision of assessment made by the assessing officer with reference to a turnover allowed in appeal has become final. So, the revision by the assessing officer is beyond his powers. In regard to T.P. Nos. 725 of 1997 and 726 of 1997, the assessees have paid the taxes already. Hence they may move before the competent authority for rectification of the order provided it is within time after excluding the time spent in the High Court and in the Special Tribunal. The assessment orders in T.P. Nos. 727 of 1997, 728 of 1997, 729 of 1997 and 785 of 1997 are set aside and these petitions are allowed. No costs. 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 5th day of March, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 602
... ...
... ... ..... ment of taxes is irrelevant because, such payment of interest is in terms of the statutory provisions. 5.. We do not think that there is any case made out for exercising our jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India merely on the spacious ground of equity and good conscience. The Act has specifically provided for payment of interest in certain situations only. We cannot add more situations under which interest can be paid to the assessee while refunding. This being a fiscal statute, it has to be construed strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act. 6.. The learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has made a passing reference to provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 for basing its claim. We find nothing in the Interest Act which justifies the exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 601
... ...
... ... ..... 1983-84 had to be interpreted as such and no rational person could have assumed that a football rubber bladder is not a sports goods but since some irrational person like the assessing officer of the assessee took the unreasonable stand, the Government amended the entry only for purposes of clarification. Another clarification that was done in the year 1990 was by clarifying that toys, swing, jhoola, medals, cups, trophies, badges and whistles were included in this entry and were not excluded. The amendment thus, lends further support to the contention of the dealer and the Tribunal s view is patently erroneous. 8. The revision petition is allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order dated August 3, 1998 on the aforesaid point, it is ordered that the Commissioner s second appeal regarding the classification and rate of tax in respect of rubber bladders shall stand dismissed. The revisionist will get its costs of this revision petition from the respondent. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 600
... ...
... ... ..... s regards, the claim for exemption under section 5(3) of the Act, it has not been disputed by the Revenue that the bladders sold by the revisionist to the exporting dealer have actually been exported out of India as part of the football. The football has three main components, (1) the leather jacket, (2) the rubber bladder, and (3) the lace that is used for closing the opening through which the bladder is put inside the leather jacket. Therefore, the export of football along with the bladder results in the export of bladder also and the dealer was entitled to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. The Tribunal has not given any other reason for denying the exemption and the reason given by it is absolutely untenable. 5.. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. The Tribunal s order dated August 3, 1998 relating to the turnover of Rs. 73,380 is set aside and the Commissioner s second appeal on that point is ordered to stand dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 599
... ...
... ... ..... te Government is to take out the assessee from the charging section. The charge that is created comes to an end the moment exemption is granted. A contention is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the composition under section 17(6) is for the year and therefore, grant of exemption during the year would still make an assessee liable to pay the tax, in terms of section 17(6) of the Act. This contention cannot be considered to be proper. It is true that the composition is granted on yearly basis, as the unit of assessment is also for an year, the charge is created annually, but if the charging section itself is not in force during part of that year, the liability ceases from the date the exemption is granted. In view of this interpretation, the assessment order dated April 22, 1997 is quashed. The assessing authority will proceed to frame the assessment de novo in the light of the observation made above. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 598
... ...
... ... ..... Commission 1996 102 STC 466 App. the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court after examining the terms and conditions of the agreement held that this case was not covered by the ratio laid down in Goel and Co. s case 1989 72 STC 368 (SC). We have examined the present case with reference to clause 15(b) of the agreement and we find that clause 15(b) is also pari materia to clause (10) in the case of Goel and Co. 1989 72 STC 368 (SC). Therefore, we hold that the supply made by the petitioner-corporation to the contractor of the goods iron, steel and cement amounts to sale and they are liable to sales tax. 12.. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the approach of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax is well founded. There is no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Security amount if any be refunded to the petitioner. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
