|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 594 Records
-
2001 (1) TMI 946 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ating to the charge for hiring the vehicle to an arbitrator and thus, it cannot be said that the rate unilaterally fixed by the Government is a final one. In the present case, the owner/operator of the vehicles under requisitioned never claimed any additional amount as sales tax nor disputed the amount fixed by the Government. It is a settled proposition of law that sale price of any goods means and includes any additional amount charged or levied separately from the buyer as sales tax. The operators/owners of the vehicles could have demanded 4 per cent tax to be added in the rates so determined/fixed by the authority, but they did not. 11.. In view of the legal position discussed above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment dated July 8, 1996, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 144 of 1990 Tripura Bus Syndicate v. State of Tripura 1997 105 STC 409 (Gauhati) is set aside. 12.. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 945 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity order had become final and was thus binding on the assessing authority. In effect, therefore, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to sit over the order of revision and again decide the same issue in the garb of reassessment. In other words, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner on the issue of set-off but it could, if proper case of reassessment was made out, issue notice of reassessment for other issue. Admittedly, the reassessment notices which are impugned in this writ is founded only the issue of set-off and not on any other ground. They are, therefore, not legally sustainable. 12.. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned notices of reassessments are without jurisdiction and hence cannot be given effect to. Petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned notices dated August 22, 1992 (annexures P6, P7 and P8) are quashed by writ of certiorari. No costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 944 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o power, authority or jurisdiction to issue such office memorandum. Being a departmental head, the Commissioner of Tax is not authorised by the statute to issue such office memorandum. It is within the exclusive domain of the State Government to impose advance tax, if any, under the provision of existing statute. In that view of the matter, the impugned office memorandum not being issued by the State Government that too without the sanction of any statute, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 19.. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the parties and on perusal of the relevant provisions of law placed before this Court, I hereby set aside and quash the impugned office memorandum dated September 27, 2000. 20.. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, this writ petition is allowed however considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, parties are to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 943 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (P and H) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala-II v. Chawla Trunk House 1983 139 ITR 182 (P and H). 41.. In the case on hand, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has categorically recorded in para 7 of the order that there was no loss of revenue to the Government by way of sales tax by sale of beedi leaves. The record also clearly evidences the payment of sales tax on beedi leaves by M/s. Balaji and Co., for all the five assessment years in question. There is thus, demonstrably, no prejudice suffered by the State warranting exercise of revisional power under section 20(1) of the Act. Since the condition precedent for exercise of the power under section 20(1) of the Act is absent, we hold that the revision undertaken by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and must accordingly be invalidated. 42.. On the aforesaid analysis, the orders under appeal require invalidation and are accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed as prayed for. Appeals allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 942 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... well agitated and determined by the statutory authority, namely, revisional authority under section 21 of the Act has force. 13.. It may here be noted that the special mode of recovery as provided in section 26-A of the Act has a non obstante clause overriding anything contained in any law or contract to the contrary. In our present case for the reasons and conclusion as recorded above I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case calling interference of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. Resultantly the present writ petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed but without costs. 14.. It may be observed herein that if the petitioner has any cause of action against any other member of the firm for recovery of any amount which the petitioner shall have paid or realised by the authority in response to the notice under annexures A-4 and A-6, he may proceed in accordance with the provisions of law. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 941 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he transfer of the property in the part or parts replaced without consideration for the transfer. In the circumstances, the only reasonable inference is that the consideration for the part or parts that might be replaced under the warranty was not separately specified, because it was included in the price fixed and paid for the car at the time of its sale. In other words, the transfer of the property in the part or parts replaced in pursuance of the stipulation or warranty is a part of the original sale of the car for the price fixed and received from the buyer/consumer. The price so fixed and received was a consolidated price for the car and the parts that may have to be supplied by way of replacement in pursuance of the warranty . We agree with the above reasoning of the Delhi High Court. 7.. In the result, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and we direct to give exemption to the turnover of the spare parts, which were given for replacement. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 940 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t orders itself were set aside by the competent revisionary authority, then in that event, this Court has to quash the RRC and the cancellation of certificate for the simple reason that basis for issuance of these two impugned orders, namely, RRC and cancellation of certificate has been totally wiped out. The fresh assessment to be made consequent upon the passing of the revisionary order will give fresh cause of action to the authorities to issue demand if occasion so arises. As the situation exists now, the impugned orders cannot stand and has to be quashed. 7.. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned RRC, dated December 11, 1991 (annexure P4), cancellation of registration certificate dated February 13, 1991 (annexure P9) and the order of revision dated August 24, 1992 (annexure P11) are quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 939 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ght to be given effect to without taking into consideration the aspect of reconsidering the case in the light of the additional material. The real fault that arises is not inconsequential and it needs to be demonstrated that in the event of either of the parties being aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing authority, then the right of appeal is provided for, whereas from the order passed by the revisional authority, the appeal before the appellate authority is obliterated. 4.. Viewed at from any angle, procedurally, the exercise of power at the stage it was done is unjustified. The order of the revisional authority is accordingly set aside. The appellate order is restored and the same shall be given effect to. We clarify that the entire matter is left open and the assessing authority who shall reconsider the case on merits and pass orders according to law. The appeal succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 938 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his own farm. An adjudication process can thus never be avoided. As pointed out by the Government Pleader, the notification has been intended to boost inter-State trade, as there is likelihood of a rejuvenation in transport of chicken by the incentive granted, and it does not therefore offend Part III of the Constitution. Article 301 of course is a fetter to legislative power, and legislation brought about can be declared as unconstitutional if it is established that its existence is wholly unsupportable and underlying idea is not holy. The petitioner has not succeeded in his attempt to challenge the notification in suggesting that provisions in the notification not extending to his class a benefit as made available to a specified class is unconstitutional. I feel that the reliefs prayed for are not liable to be granted. 16.. The original petition is therefore dismissed. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 59221 of 2000 and 805 of 2001 in O.P. No. 34647 of 2000 closed. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 937 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tulates belief and existence of reasons for that belief. It postulates that the assessing officer holds the belief induced by the existence of reasons for holding such belief. It contemplates existence of reason on which the belief is founded, and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. However, there is no requirement in law which postulates recording of reason in the notice to be issued in terms of section 24 of the Act. 5.. Above being the position, the notice issued in terms of section 24 of the Act is indefensible. Various other points were also taken in the writ petition. We do not think it necessary to deal with them in view of the aforesaid conclusion. Accordingly, we nullify the notice (annexure P5) issued under section 24 of the Act. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for the parties. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 936 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ders of the subordinate authorities. It may be true that in many cases it may agree with the findings of the lower authorities. But that does not mean that the Tribunal has not got power to assess the evidence independently. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has not contributed any single independent finding. It has only approved the order of the lower authorities without stating any further. The arguments of the counsel for the appellant have not been considered on their proper perspective. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, in T.A. No. 31 of 1999 and direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal afresh after hearing both parties. Till fresh orders are passed no demands shall be made from the petitioner regarding the tax assessed. Order on C.M.P. No. 5968 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 413 of 2000 dismissed. Tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 935 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation is required to be made when we come to the items enumerated in the Second Schedule for which reason, a specific inclusion appears in entry No. 2 just as specific exclusions appear in the defining section. Consequently, what emerges is that it would not be permissible for a court even applying the principles of harmonious construction to either ignore or by-pass what is contained in the defining section whereas, what is required to be done is that the court will have to be guided by the provisions of the defining section. 7.. Having regard to the aforesaid situation, in our considered view, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that rubber would qualify for exemption is rendered erroneous. The order passed by the Tribunal is accordingly quashed and set aside. The revision petition accordingly succeeds and stands disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The appellate order is consequently restored. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 934 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the basis of their own survey has issued the guidelines to all cost accountants to treat the foot valves to be accessories of pumping sets for the purpose of costing in accountancy. 19.. In view of the aforesaid declaration rendered by this Court, it is not necessary to examine the alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the foot valve is an agricultural implement as defined in entry 94 of Schedule I. 20.. The question, whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption under entry 89 of Schedule I will now be decided by the commercial tax authorities because as observed supra the exemption is confined to only those foot valves which are used in pumping sets having their strength below 10 H.P. 21.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated August 4, 1995 (annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner is set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 933 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nalty for breach of section 22A, existence of mens rea on the part of dealer committing breach for avoidance or evasion of payment of tax is sine qua non for levying penalty for such breach which otherwise is of technical nature and the principle laid down by honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel s case 1970 25 STC 211 apply to such technical breaches or procedural lapses. Reference in this connection may be made to 2000 120 STC 217 (Raj) (Voltas s case). Special Leave Petition therefrom has also been dismissed since then. 8.. The principle was also enunciated about necessity of mens rea before levying penalty in Mahaveer Conductors v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward III, Circle C, Jodhpur 1997 104 STC 65 (Raj). Since the order of learned Tribunal is sustainable on this ground alone, validity of other reason become of academic importance only and need not be considered. Petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 932 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee concerned. 8.. It cannot be said that any opportunity of hearing before making assessment against him raising liability to the tune of Rs. 15,26,600 was afforded that is to say the issue involved in this case has been decided without hearing the petitioner at all. 9.. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it ought not to have held as ground for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to be heard before any order is passed affecting his right adversely and the assessment order is finalised. 10.. We therefore, allow this appeal as well as the writ petition and set aside the order passed on December 31, 1998 and leave the assessing officer free to complete the proceedings under section 12 in accordance with law and to make fresh reassessment order after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including the personal hearing. 11.. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal and writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 931 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave not followed the procedure prescribed under section 15(10) ibid and has proceeded in the matter by informing to other State departments of the cancellation. This action of the sales tax authorities is clearly without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. 9.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned communication dated October 9, 1992 annexures P10(1), P10(2) and P11 are quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to hold a proper inquiry and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, and after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner on October 8, 1992 (annexure P9), pass a reasoned order on the issue of cancellation of registration certificate for which two show cause notices dated October 1, 1992 (annexure P8) are issued to the petitioner. Let these be done within four months from the date of this order. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 930 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... away consigning the item to the residuary entry may not always be the correct method of deploying the taxation process in so far as the test of categorising must be under the next best head provided it answers rationally and generally to that description and this would be the correct formula that is required to be applied. We have very briefly recounted and restated the principles as far as this aspect of the law is concerned for the limited reason that it would be necessary for the department in particular to bear these in mind while classifying different items. 7.. For the reasons enunciated by us above, the appellants are entitled to succeed. The revisional order which is the impugned order as far as the present appeal is concerned is set aside and the earlier Appellate order stands restored. The appeal succeeds to this extent and stands disposed of. No order as to costs. The appellants/assessee would undoubtedly be entitled to the consequential benefits. Appeals allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 929 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from this it is equally necessary that the Department must take action that would work as a real deterrent in so far as if the penalty that ultimately emerges is so light or so innocuous, it would be misunderstood as an incentive. It is precisely for this reason that we see no ground to interfere with the order in question. We do concede that even as far as punishments or penalties are concerned that the courts and authorities must follow a rational basis and conform to the well-settled principles that emerge from the doctrine of punishments. If the penalty imposed is vindictive, if it is abnormally harsh or if the order passed bears no rational basis to the principles of reasonable estimation and is a runaway or a perverse order then interference would certainly be called for. None of these ingredients are present in this case. There is therefore no justification for interference. 3.. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 928 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... administrative order, in fact, the law was wanted to be amended by an administrative order without appropriate sanction, it would have been a different matter altogether in doing so. But in the present case I cannot find any justification as to why the question of vires, if any, cannot be challenged before the Tribunal itself in addition to factual disputes. 18.. Under such circumstances, all these three writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 19.. However, this order will not prevent the petitioners from making any application before the Tribunal as early as possible on the self same cause of action and if it is done the same will not hit by the principle of res judicata and analogous thereto or law of limitation. 20.. In view of the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions, the application being CAN No. 10400 of 2000 has become infructuous and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 927 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate authority. Before the Tribunal, the judgment was produced. The Appellate Tribunal did not give importance to the fact that the reduction was given with regard to the turnover, etc. Further, we find that in the estimation of the turnover on the basis that for the month of April, 1971, the purchase was for Rs. 1,43,598, the turnover was estimated at 10 times the purchase suppression. 3.. After looking into the entire aspects, we are of the view that the estimation is very high. Further, we are of the view that the Tribunal should consider the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the turnover fixed should be taken into account in fixing the estimated turnover in the present case. 4.. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh as per the directions given above. T.R.C. is disposed of. Order on C.M.P. No. 3700 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 254 of 2000 dismissed. Petition allowed.
........
|
