Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 675 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 1204
... ... ... ... ..... companied S.N. Tripathi (PW4) as the witnesses. The trial court appears to have omitted to note the glaring contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. PW4 in his testimony in the court submitted that ...he received the information that accused Bholaram Kushwaha was having brown sugar in the pocket of his trouser. He recorded that information in the Sanha. That is Ex.P/13 . However, a perusal of Exhibit P13 showed that no entry was made therein regarding the appellant having brown sugar in his pocket. We feel that the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence led, which in this case, we have found to be contradictory and not reliable. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence as passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1203
... ... ... ... ..... gravity of the transgression of law committed and the circumstances in which the same is committed. Thus, the factual aspects are to be examined first by the fact finding authorities below. Therefore, the applicant, if he questions the validity of the imposition of penalty or the quantum of the same, he must move the appropriate authorities below agitating his plea in this regard. Hence, we do not make any comment on the desirability or otherwise of imposition of penalty and the quantum thereof. For the redressal of the grievance in that regard the applicant must exhaust the remedies available in the forums below. 8.. We thus declare the impugned seizure valid. The applicant at his option may take recourse to the revisional proceedings at the appropriate forums against the impugned order imposing penalty. 9.. The application is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. We make no order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1202
... ... ... ... ..... that the petitioner was put into possession of the property in pursuance of a partnership agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent. We do not want to express any opinion about this claim. If the petitioner has a right to be in possession of the subject premises by virtue of the partnership deed, it is open for him to work out appropriate legal remedies available to him before an appropriate forum. We are not called upon to pronounce on the rights and obligations flowing from the so-called partnership deed. We leave that question open to be agitated by the parties in an appropriate legal proceedings. We make it clear that if the petitioner establishes his right before the competent court of law that he is entitled to be in lawful and legal possession of the subject premises, in that event, it is open for him to apply for grant of fresh registration certificate. 6.. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1201
... ... ... ... ..... be said to be a notice in accordance with section 19. In T.D. Davis v. State of Kerala 2001 21 STC and (2) while passing an order under section 12(2) levying a penalty the assessing officer is not required statutorily to give any finding as to whether there was any wilful non-disclosure of the assessable turnover by the dealer, whereas section 16 insists that such a finding is necessary before penalty is levied. -Ed. 567 (Ker) (1997) KLJ (TC) 112, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V.V. Kamat and K. Narayana Kurup, JJ., was considering a similar question whether serving of form 50 notice will apply to the statutory compliance of section 19. There, the court held that it will not apply. 9.. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation and hence, the entire orders are set aside. Tax revision case is allowed. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 3071 and 3660 of 1998 in T.R.C. No. 310 of 1988 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1200
... ... ... ... ..... ate of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 1496, Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority AIR 1980 SC 738 and D.F.O. v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1368). 5.. Even in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 450 relied upon by the petitioner, it was held that in the absence of constitutional or statutory rights being involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against the State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right article 226 cannot be availed of to claim any money in respect of breach of contract or tort or otherwise. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner deal with contextually different issues and views related to facts peculiar to that case. They have no application to the facts of present case. That being the position, petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1199
... ... ... ... ..... issuance of any order or direction of a general nature applicable to all kinds of dealers such as exporters in castor oil as is the case herein. The impugned part of the circular or instructions directing the handling agent not to deliver any goods for export without prior instructions and intimation to the tax authorities is per se de hors the power of the sales tax authorities under section 59(4) of the Act. Such general instructions being not in accordance with section 59(4), therefore, cannot be sustained. 14.. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (annexure A/7) dated August 7, 2000 and the impugned general instructions (annexure A/14) dated September 26, 2000 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Flying Squad, Unit-3, Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1) are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Under the circumstances, the petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this petition quantified to Rs. 2,000. Application allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1198
... ... ... ... ..... g at the appellate revisional reference or rectification stage. 28.. It is made clear that wherever the petitioners have been assessed to tax on turnover of milk powder and tax have been recovered, the Ordinance and the Act would have retrospective operationhence the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any refund. The relief claimed by the petitioner for refund is rejected. 29.. The petitions therefore only partly succeed by restraining the respondents as tax authorities under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act from reopening the assessments or subjecting the turnover of milk powder to tax in cases of petitioners as dealers who were neither assessed or subjected to tax in their assessment cases on the basis of the unamended sub-entry (i) of entry 10 of Schedule I prior to coming into force of the impugned Act and the Ordinance, i.e., January 11, 1997. In view of the partial success of the petitioner, we would direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1197
... ... ... ... ..... of the Tribunal and also the grounds of appeal. Nowhere this specific plea was taken before the Tribunal nor this plea was pressed into service at the time of arguments by the counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal. It is trite to state that the question now urged before us is essentially a question of fact. Unless this factual question was addressed to the authorities and the Tribunal under the Act for their decision with the appropriate pleading, we are afraid such a plea could be permitted to be raised before us for the first time. It cannot be gainsaid that if an overhead projector could be used for projecting a film strip, thereby meaning, for projecting a still as well as motion film strip, certainly such a projector could be brought under entry 4 of First Schedule. 7.. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and no question of law arises in this T.R.C. The T.R.C. is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1196
... ... ... ... ..... s a case where the petitioner was practising a systematic and calculated method of evasion was wholly justified. 12.. The improper accounts for years together, pointed out by the Government Pleader, if went unnoticed would have resulted in gross revenue loss, and therefore the assessee did not deserve any leniency as he had failed to observe the mandate of section 27 of the Act. Even by exhibit P4, the above finding had been recorded. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that no interference in the proceedings are warranted. The proceedings do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The assessee admits that the accounts did not reflect the correct position. The mistaken assessment was presented for three consecutive years. In the circumstances, the case do not merit interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is dismissed. No costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 19352 of 1996 in O.P. No. 11152 of 1996C dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1195
... ... ... ... ..... is granted an opportunity to raise all these objections before the authority by filing a reply. It is not necessary for me to give any finding on these arguments. Moreover these submissions are based on mixed questions of fact and law and hence they cannot be properly considered in writ at its threshold. That apart, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in case if these objections are raised before the authority concerned. So far as challenge to the assessment orders and the revision orders on merits is concerned, since no finding is recorded one way or other in regard to challenge to show cause notice the petitioner will always be at liberty to challenge the orders of assessment/revision at the later date as and when and if occasion so arises in any appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. I therefore refrain from examining its legality at this stage. The aforesaid observations will be treated to be a part of the judgment delivered by me today. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1194
... ... ... ... ..... le at her hands. But, as per specific entries in the Schedule, beverages sold in bar attached hotel are taxable and the assessing authority has taken into account this aspect in including the turnover of soda and cola as taxable at the appellant s hands. We see no materials before us to interfere with this finding. 3.. According to the petitioner, this case is governed by entry 87 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. As per entry 87 which stood at the relevant time the commodities are taxable only at the first sale. Here admittedly there is second sale. The learned Government Pleader was not able to submit that the item is not fall under entry 87. Hence we are of the view that the order made by the assessing authority confirmed by the appellate authority and modified by the Tribunal is wrong. The assessment orders are set aside. Tax revision case is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 3566 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 211 of 2000(I) dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1193
... ... ... ... ..... have not applied their mind to this specific question except generally recording divergent finding without disclosing supporting materials and evidence. In that view of the matter, we think it appropriate to remit the matter to the appellate authority, i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, for redetermining the tax liability of the appellant-assessee by a reasoned order and after consideration of all relevant documents and evidence. 4.. In the result, we allow the special appeals, and the order under appeal is set aside. The proceedings now shall stand remitted to the first appellate authority, i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division with a direction to determine the tax liability of the appellant de novo by considering all the relevant documents and materials placed before him by the appellant-assessee and in the light of this judgment and the directions of the Tribunal dated May 25, 1987. No costs. Appeals allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1192
... ... ... ... ..... order pursuant to which refund is claimed becomes subject-matter of the appeal or any other proceedings made under the Act and the competent authority is of the opinion that grant of the refund would adversely affect the recovery. In the case in hand, the respondents have neither pleaded nor they have produced any evidence to show that an order under section 44 has been passed by the competent authority for withholding refund of the amount due to the petitioner. We, therefore, hold that failure of the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 22,000, which became payable to the petitioner as a result of quashing of the order of penalty has resulted in violation of its right to property. 8.. Hence, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to refund Rs. 22,000 to the petitioner with interest at 12 per cent per annum from expiry of 60 days calculated from the date of submission of application dated September 18, 1999 to the Assessing Authority. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1191
... ... ... ... ..... s advocate informed that such turnover relating to the receipts on video shooting coverage and servicing could not be subjected to tax and the turnover relating to the value of the goods, which were video cassettes only could be subjected to tax and under those circumstances he chose to file the appeal. That explanation offered by the petitioner-appellant was rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that there was no change of law subsequent to the assessment order. The first appellate authority has given detailed reasons in support of the above conclusion. The view taken by the first appellate authority was also confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal , for short) by its order dated June 11, 1992. The view taken by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal in the fact-situation is unexceptionable. There is no warrant for interference. 3.. The T.R.C. is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1190
... ... ... ... ..... ent for telegraphic lines including the instrument. Therefore, mere charge of the rent or fee as per measured rate system or message rate system cannot be equated with sale of goods or deemed sale of goods within the meaning of the 1973 Act. As a logical corollary to the aforementioned conclusion, we hold that the orders of assessment passed by respondent No. 2 and the demand notices issued by him are without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed as such. 14.. Before concluding we may mention that although the petitioners prayed for striking down section 2(1)(iv), learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that he does not want to press this prayer and, therefore, we refrain from making adjudication upon the vires of the said section. 15.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned assessment orders and the demand notices are declared illegal and quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1189
... ... ... ... ..... contained in rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) of the Act which have been relied upon by the HLSC for declining the petitioner s prayer could not have been applied to its case. Admittedly, rule 28-B was notified in the official gazette on May 18, 1999, i.e., 6 days after the submission of the application by the petitioner for grant of exemption certificate. Section 64(2)(ff) and (oo) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 under which rule 28-B has been framed does not empower the State Government to frame such rules with retrospective effect. Therefore, rule 28-B can be invoked for deciding applications filed after May 18, 1999 and not those filed prior to that date. 9.. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned decisions taken by the LLSC and the HLSC with the direction to the HLSC to decide the petitioner s appeal afresh within three months of the submission/receipt of certified copy of this order after hearing its representative. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1188
... ... ... ... ..... ents or declaration as prescribed and further the importer was in a hurry to sale those goods before Diwali ends. The fact that the goods have been purchased in cash at Delhi without any bill or without any other documents, leads to only conclusion that transaction in question was under hand transaction clearly aimed at indulging in the business of sale within the State of Rajasthan without payment of any tax. Therefore import was not only in violation of section 22-C of the Act on admitted facts and the mens rea of not following the requirement of law with intention to evade or avoid tax is also writ large. 11.. In these circumstances ultimate contrary conclusion reached by the appellate authorities in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be sustained. 12.. Accordingly this revision is allowed. The orders passed by the appellate authorities are set aside and that of the assessing authority is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1187
... ... ... ... ..... on the ground that the stone crusher falls in the negative list and is not eligible for sales tax exemption under the Rules. The HLSC confirmed the decision of the LLSC on the premise that the applications filed by similarly situated persons had been rejected and the same had been upheld by the High Court while dismissing C.W.P. Nos. 11682 to 11685 of 1994 Rao Stone Crushing v. State of Haryana 1997 106 STC 471 (P and H) . It further held that the stone crusher falls in the negative list and, therefore, the petitioner does not qualify for grant of eligibility certificate. In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the LLSC and HLSC are consistent with the provisions of the Rules to which reference has been made hereinabove and we do not find any valid ground to direct issuance of eligibility certificate to the petitioner de hors the provisions of the Rules. No other point has been argued. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1186
Whether mere absence of independent witness when PW17 recorded the statement of A2-Ramesh and the nicker was recovered pursuant to the said statement, is not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Held that:- On consideration of the entire evidence in this case we have no doubt that the trial court had come to the correct conclusion that the two respondents were the rapists who subjected Anuradha to such savagery ravishment. The Division Bench of the High Court has grossly erred in interfering with such a correct conclusion made by the trial court as the reasons adopted by the High Court for such interference are very tenuous. Nonetheless it is difficult to enter upon a finding that the respondents are equally guilty of murder of Anuradha. In the opinion of PW1 doctor the child died due to intracranial damage consequent upon surface force impact to the head. The said opinion was made with reference to the subdural haemotoma which resulted in subarachnoid haemorrage. Such a consequence happened during the course of the violent ravishment committed by either both or by one of the rapists without possibly having any intention or even knowledge that their action would produce any such injury. Even so, the rapists cannot disclaim knowledge that the acts done by them on a little infant of such a tender age were likely to cause its death. Hence they cannot escape conviction from the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Thus set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the conviction passed by the trial court under Section 376 and 377 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court awarded the maximum sentence to the respondents under the said counts i.e. imprisonment for life. The fact situation in this case does not justify any reduction of that sentence. We also convict the respondents under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 of the IPC though it is unnecessary to award any sentence thereunder in view of the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the respondents under the other two counts.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1185
... ... ... ... ..... llowable. Therefore, while reversing the order of the authorities below, we order deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).As regards ground No. 4 challenge is with regard to confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,100 out of stationery and printing expenses and Rs. 6,505 out of motor car expenses.From the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we find that these issues though taken in grounds of appeal of the assessee, have not been discussed or considered by him, though these were taken as specific grounds in the memorandum of appeal filed as grounds Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. In order to meet the ends of justice, we would restore these issues back to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to decide afresh after giving opportunity to the assessee. As such this ground of appeal is set aside.As a result, the appeal of the assessee is decided in the above terms.
........
|