|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 558 Records
-
2000 (9) TMI 1012
... ...
... ... ..... that if that was the fact, nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a restoration petition immediately or within a reasonable time. The petitioner waited for 10 months for filing the restoration petition. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on receipt of certified copy of the order dated December 4, 1990, the petitioner filed the application for restoration of the appeal. It is difficult to accept this explanation. No reasonable person, faced with a similar situation, would normally wait for considerable time till he receives the certified copy of the order. It was open to the petitioner to seek exemption from filing certified copy of the formal order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition for default. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the restoration petition. We cannot say that the Tribunal has decided any question of law erroneously. The tax revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1011
... ...
... ... ..... Tax Act, 1948 were initiated and vide order dated November 27, 1987 the assessing authority imposed a sum of Rs. 10,400 as penalty. The imposition of penalty was upheld in the first appeal filed by the assessee. However, in the second appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide impugned order has allowed the appeal and it had deleted the imposition of penalty. It had found that there was no intention to evade any payment of tax as the consignment was duly accompanied by bill and form XXXI. Merely because in the gate pass the name of M/s. S.K. Tubes was mentioned, no violation of section 28-A of the Act can be said. It further found that there was no intention to evade any payment of tax. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact which are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity in law. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1010
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. J.K. Goswami submitted that the matter is left for consideration by the Tribunal as may be deemed proper in discharging natural justice. 10.. In view of the submissions and the findings made above we are of the opinion that for the sake of the substantial justice the application filed in form No. 1 by the petitioner should be disposed of on merits for which the State will not suffer any loss or injury. The ex parte order dated August 13, 1999, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, the respondent No. 3, should, therefore, be set aside. 11.. Accordingly, it is ordered that the ex parte order in Appeal Case No. A-147/98-99 passed on August 13, 1999 is set aside. It is directed that the application dated September 8, 1999 in form No. 1 submitted by the petitioner under Settlement Act, 1999 is to be admitted and disposed of on merits in accordance with law. 12.. The application is, thus, allowed. No order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1009
... ...
... ... ..... ctant to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation particularly where no extraordinary circumstances exists justifying such extension. The competent authority was so neglectful as not to consult the official records to ascertain the latest address of the company mentioned therein. There is nothing to show that the authority acted with due diligence. No acknowledgement due card has been produced to show such a notice ever served. There is nothing to show if the authority concerned ever cared to take recourse to the proviso to rule 43 when any such notice came back unserved. 8.. In the result, the application is allowed. If the deficit court fees of Rs. 300 is paid within a fortnight, the impugned notices shall stand quashed. If the court fees as mentioned above is not paid by the company within the date mentioned, the instant application shall stand dismissed. We make no order as to costs. A. DEB (Technical Member).-agree. Application allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1008
... ...
... ... ..... s for that specific purpose. Mr. Bose has argued that the company did not make the payment of the admitted tax because it was waiting for the outcome of its revisional application. But the contention is wholly untenable. The revision application may have relevance as regards the raising of turnover over the admitted one by the assessing authority but it has absolutely nothing to do with the admitted tax. There is absolutely no ground why the company should not pay the admitted tax pending the revision application when it was already fortified with funds for payment of the same. 8.. In view of the circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case where this Tribunal should exercise its discretionary power to frustrate the valid orders passed by the competent authorities and to extend to the company a special privilege which it does not deserve. In the result, application is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. A. DEB (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1007
... ...
... ... ..... e or is a sale in the course of import or export. 13.. It is not necessary, therefore, to decide the question as to where the agreement was executed, to determine the situs of the sale. In both the cases before us, there is absolutely no doubt that goods moved from one State to another, on account of the transfer of right to use the machineries. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the turnovers in question in both the cases, are not liable to be assessed under section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 14.. Once the main turnover escapes assessment, the consequential levies based on the main turnover have also to be deleted. In this view of the matter, both the tax revision cases are allowed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 14th day of September, 2000. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1006
... ...
... ... ..... against any of the pulses in entry 6-A of the Second Schedule to the Act equals the name given in respect of mochai or horsegram. Thus, the view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in concluding that these goods namely mochai and horsegram would fall under declared goods covered by the Second Schedule to the Act is erroneous and therefore we hold that horsegram and mochai would not be covered by entry 6-A of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 6.. Accordingly the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in M M.T.A. Nos. 346 of 1991 to 348 of 1991 and 508 of 1992 are set aside and the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are restored thereby allowing the revision petitions filed by the Revenue. 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 September, 1999. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1005
... ...
... ... ..... as also been produced indicating some officers by designation who have been conferred with the powers of the Commissioner. 4.. On consideration of the submission of the counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that the Sales Tax Officer, Vigilance (opposite party No. 1) who has been functioning under the Inspector-General of Police, Vigilance, is not competent to realise the amount inasmuch as he is not under the control and supervision of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the time being. Therefore, realisation of the aforesaid amount by way of tax and penalty by him is without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. As a necessary corollary, the order of the Additional Commissioner dated January 1, 2000 at annexure 2 has also to be quashed and we so direct. 5.. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 86,912 collected from the petitioner forthwith. CH. P.K. MISRA, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1004
... ...
... ... ..... oner under rule 6-A has to be exercised in a fair way. Its facts reveal that the prayer for registration under rule 6-A was rejected because the Commissioner found that the concerned Sales Tax Officer might not be able to exercise necessary checks in respect of the transactions of the dealer. This Court found the said reason to be germane. The case having been decided on the basis of the peculiar facts obtaining therein, no support can be laid on that case to consider the petitioner s application made under rule 6-A. 7.. In the result, the impugned order of the Commissioner at annexure 4 is hereby quashed. As there is no other ground available to oppose the prayer of the petitioner, the Commissioner is directed to allow its application for registration under rule 6-A on such terms and conditions as he deems necessary and pass appropriate orders within one month of receipt of the writ. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. CH. P.K. MISTRA, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1003
... ...
... ... ..... Nadu was on the basis of the agreement entered into between the holding company and the Cotton Corporation of India which in turn means a contract was between subsidiary company and Cotton Corporation of India. Once the above finding is reached there is no escape from the conclusion that it is an inter-State sale and the turnover cannot be treated as last purchase of cotton within Tamil Nadu. My conclusion as above is in conformity with the view expressed by honourable Justice V. Rengasamy, the Vice-Chairman of this Tribunal. Consequently, by majority opinion, the transactions are held as inter-State sales and the turnover in question, namely Rs. 4,31,15,431 is not taxable under the TNGST Act. The tax revision case is therefore 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 8th day of September, 2000. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1002
Whether the employees of Municipal Corporation can claim any right for transfer of municipal quarters to them on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation, which are not initiated or moved but objected to by the Municipal Commissioner?
Held that:- We have to consider the scheme of Section 200 which empowers the Commissioner to dispose of the moveable property or grant lease of any immovable property or to sell the same subject to the conditions provided thereunder. On the condition of obtaining sanction of the Corporation, the power to transfer immovable property, the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees vests in the Commissioner. Result is the Commissioner can transfer such immovable property only after obtaining sanction of the Corporation. Obtaining of sanction by the Commissioner is mandatory. The effect of the non-observance of the statutory prescription would vitiate the transfer. This would also mean that the power to dispose of the property would vest in the Commissioner and not in the Corporation. No specific power is conferred upon the Corporation for such transfer. The scheme envisages checks and balances for disposal of immovable property on the power of the Commissioner. In the light of the aforesaid interpretation of Section 200, it is not necessary for us to deal with other contentions raised and dealt with by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, at no point of time, Municipal Commissioner has decided or agreed to transfer the Municipal quarters in favour of its employees/allottees. There is no legal right to claim ownership on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Corporation as the said resolutions are without any power or authority. Hence, there is no substance in these petitions.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1001
Ex- parte interim order of injunction
Whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies?
Held that:- In the light of the direction issued by the High Court that the trial court should pass final orders on the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff on merits and in accordance with law, we may further add that till such orders are passed by the trial court, status-quo as it prevailed immediately preceding the institution of the suit would be maintained by the parties.
-
2000 (9) TMI 1000
Whether the circumstances of suspicion exist warranting the restraint on a person?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. When the period of detention itself had expired 13 years earlier, then this Court came to the conclusion as aforesaid. Husband of the respondent evaded arrest as is obvious and obtained an interim order from the High Court which was in force till the disposal of the writ petition and thereafter on quashing of the detention order question of detention made did not arise now. Therefore, we do not think that it would be appropriate to state that merely by passage of time the nexus between the object for which the husband of the respondent is sought to be detained and the circumstances in which he was ordered to be detained has snapped. However, we make it clear that if those circumstances did not exist, then it would be appropriate for the Government to revoke the order of detention and, if still certain circumstances as apprehended in the order of detention exist, it will be open to the Government to enforce the same
-
2000 (9) TMI 999
... ...
... ... ..... es like Customs Act, Haryana Sales Tax Act and Calcutta Municipal Act. In that way, these decisions should be considered to be having ample bearing on the issue involved in the present case. The decisions are also considerably linked to the present issue, although they did not consider directly the issue of includibility of interest on purchase tax for the purpose of section 43B. However, these decisions have got great persuasive value in deciding the present issue before us. In view of our discussions, as above, and taking cue from these three decisions, we are of the opinion that so far as interest on purchase tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, is concerned, the same cannot be considered to form a part of tax for the purpose of applicability of the provisions of section 43B(a). We, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in holding so and in allowing relief to the assessee. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... dquo of sugar plant by replacing substantial part of the plant was revenue expenditure as no new asset was brought into existence. Even the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Khalsa Nirbhai Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. 1971 82 ITR 741, has held that the expenditure incurred on replacement of petrol engines by diesel engines in its buses was a revenue expenditure. In the light of the legal position discussed above, we hold that the expenditure incurred on replacement of damaged rolls was in the nature of revenue expenditure and not capital in nature. The assessee was entitled to claim deduction as current repairs. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction on the replacement cost of rolls as current repairs. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed for both the assessment years. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 997
... ...
... ... ..... ecause otherwise at least the portion of the amount which was to be paid through cheque would have been disclosed by the assessee. There is no other material in support of the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the amount was in fact paid by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we direct to delete the addition. The last issue is regarding relief under section 80L of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 80L from the undisclosed income computed by him on the ground that such relief is not allowable in respect of the block assessment. Having heard both the sides we find that under section 158BH, save and except what is provided in Chapter XIV-B, all other provisions of this Act shall apply. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, the provision of the section 80L is applicable. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow relief under the said provision. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 996
Penalty, Concealment, Agreed Addition, Appeal Not Maintainable ... ... ... ... ..... ct but it is not shown in any manner that the assessee was guilty of contumacious conduct or any gross or wilful neglect. We are of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of s. 271(1)(c) are not satisfied. Accordingly, we hold that for the addition of Rs. 3,08,401 no penalty was exigible under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The orders of the authorities below are set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 5. Though it cannot be laid down as a principle of universal application that whenever an addition is made on a concession, penalty is not to be levied, the factual position in each case has to be considered and the background in which the agreement is made for the addition has to be taken note of, The fact that for the subsequent period deduction has been granted is a relevant factor that has been duly noted by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we find nothing wrong in the conclusion of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty. The appeal is not entertained.
-
2000 (9) TMI 995
Whether the Tribunal was right in law to hold that the provisions of section 43B, were not applicable to the unpaid liability towards royalty payment since royalty was neither tax nor duty - HC answered the question in the negative and against the assessee - Constitution Bench judgment in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu lays down the law, namely, royalty is tax, and it is a tax for all purposes including section 43B- hence judgment of the HC is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (9) TMI 994
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... facts alleged that a bona fide dispute was raised by the company, and, therefore, no order for winding up could be made. In this connection, a decision cited by Mr. Ashim Banerjee in the case of Printers (Mysore) (P.) Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph AIR 1960 SC 1156 may be relied on. In that decision, the Supreme Court clearly held that the appellate court was only to consider whether discretion used by the trial court was used by it reasonably or the court had ignored relevant factors and adopted an unjudicial approach, only then it would certainly be open to the appellate court to interfere with the order of the trial court but not otherwise. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. However, this order will not prevent the appellant/petitioner from proceeding against the company/respondent in accordance with law before any appropriate forum in respect of the claim, if any thereof.
-
2000 (9) TMI 993
Company Law Board ... ... ... ... ..... company judge against the orders of the Company Law Board, but it will also help in expeditious disposal of appeals. Therefore, we direct the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for His Lordship rsquo s consideration and possibility of considering the suggestions of the Court. 12. We have emphasized the need for such exercise particularly keeping in view the fact that the Companies (Court) Rules have not been amended by the Supreme Court under section 643 of the Companies Act despite the introduction of sections 10E and 10F on the statute book. The above discussion further justifies the need to amend the relevant High Court Rules and Orders so that the appeal against the orders of the Company Law Board can be dealt with and disposed of by the company judge. 13. As of present, the appeal would lie before the Division Bench. Therefore, we direct the appeal to be listed for preliminary hearing before the appropriate Bench subject to orders of the Chief Justice.
........
|
