|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 614 Records
-
2001 (7) TMI 1270 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Orissa. On careful consideration, we do not find any merit in this contention. We are not concerned whether mustard oil-cake is actually used as cattle feed or not by the customer or whether mustard oil-cake can be used for any other purpose. When the law declares oil-cake which includes all its types to be a cattle feed, the view of the Director is of little assistance in deciding this question. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax while deciding first appeal found from the sales memos that all the sales were made as cattle feed during the relevant period. This indicates that mustard oil-cake was being sold as cattle feed. 6.. For the reasons indicated, we hold that mustard oil-cake being cattle feed, comes within the ambit of entry No. 30-D of the tax-free list and is thus exempt from sales tax under the Act. There is thus no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. L. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1269 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e competent authority. Secondly, the provisions of the Sales Tax Act authorise the authority to recover the dues. Substantial amounts of money due to the State are involved. The petitioners are avoiding to pay on one pretext or the other. Even otherwise, if the petitioner chooses to avail of the remedies of appeal, etc., it can raise the plea before the appropriate authority which shall consider the relevant facts as borne out from the record and the law. However, we find no ground to interfere at this stage. It may be added that the counsel could not even prima facie show that no permission as envisaged under the provision had been obtained. 14.. No other point was raised in either of the two cases. 15.. In view of the above, we find no merit in either of these petitions. Consequently, both are dismissed. The respondents shall be entitled to their costs. 16.. We had pronounced the order immediately on hearing the cases. We have now recorded the reasons. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1268 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d be inflicted in the circumstances. 27.. To enable the Commissioner to consider these aspects from the correct perspective and in the light of the relevant case law about which reference is already made in the earlier paras, I set aside orders of the revisional authority (Commissioner) and the consequential orders impugned in these cases. Exhibits P7 and P8 in O.P. No. 4304 of 1999, exhibit P5 order in O.P. No. 10445 of 1996, exhibit P11 order in O.P. No. 7021 of 1996, exhibit P3 order in O.P. No. 6823 of 1999 and exhibit P5 order in O.P. No. 16793 of 1996 are so set aside. The revisions are remitted to the Commissioner for fresh disposal with due notice of hearing to the assessees concerned. The collection of the disputed penalty amount will stand stayed until the Commissioner passes fresh orders on the revision petitions. The original petitions are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 7304 of 1999 in O.P. No. 4304 of 1999K dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1267 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... competence and violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision or limitation. The consequence of the incorporation of the fiction in Explanation to definition of the word person and also Explanation I of the First Schedule to the Act is not to tax a person at a rate higher than Rs. 2,500 per annum, per person, but to treat even a branch of a firm, company, corporation or other corporate body, any society, club or association as a separate person, and therefore, a separate assessee within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature has undoubtedly the legislative power to adopt such a devise of taxation and in adopting such devise, the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature has not violated the mandate of article 276(2) of the Constitution. 28.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the writ petitions with no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1266 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mself that the petitioner would be willing to furnish bank guarantee. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed the difficulties for the petitioner-company to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 19 lakhs. 14.. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition in part and quash the provisional attachment notice No. CCT s JC(CT)Enf./CTO-V/10/2000-2001, dated March 20, 2001 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), No. V, Enforcement Wing, Nampally, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, and direct the respondents to raise the attachment questioned in this writ petition forthwith on the petitioner furnishing security of immovable property for a sum of Rs. 19 (nineteen) lakhs within a period of 15 days from today to the satisfaction of the first respondent. This arrangement shall be valid till the finalisation of the provisional or final assessment for the block period August to November, 2000. No costs. Writ petition allowed in part.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1265 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n. Parliament, in the wording of an enactment, is expected to anticipate temporal developments. The drafter will try to foresee the future, and allow for it in the wording. 11.. Respectfully following the later decisions, we find that no useful purpose would be served by calling upon the Tribunal to state the case and make a reference. Thus, to avoid unnecessary wastage of time, we think it appropriate to decide the matter. Since the facts are admitted and the law has been settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we think that the question as raised by the assessee has to be answered in its favour. Resultantly, we do so. It is held that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the levy of interest. Resultantly, the assessee shall be entitled to its refund. 12.. In view of the above, the question as posed at the outset in all the three cases is answered in favour of the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in favour of assessee.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1264 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... is sub- section (2) shall also become infructuous. The period of limitation actually will be meaningless under this provision for the reason that any such re-opening of assessment can be made by the Commissioner even long after four years from the date of assessment taking a plea of communication of the date of assessment by such concerned assess- ing officer or by any such other appropriate authority. 9. Hence, for the reasons discussed above, we are of opinion that the date of assessment for the purpose of this section 46A cannot be held to be the date of communication so made. The learned Deputy Commissioner, therefore, rightly came to a finding that the application for re-opening of the deemed assessment made under section 46A(1) of the Act was barred by limitation. 10.. The instant application, therefore, merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. The applications filed in RN-260 of 2001 and RN-261 of 2001 are dismissed without costs. Applications dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1263 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the authority may reopen such assessment and make a fresh assessment under section 45(1). So, on combined reading of sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) of section 46A, as well as section 45(1) of the Act, the legislative intent is very clear that six months as referred to, in sub-section (4) starts from 31st day of December, 1999, a date already known to all assessees as the date of deemed assess- ment. No further communication is warranted so as to make the time of six months run from the date of communication as learned lawyer for the petitioners wanted us to hold. That was never the legislative intent. That being the case we hold that there is no merit in this application and learned Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 3 rightly held the application for reopening the assessment is not maintainable being barred by time. 7.. Accordingly, the applications in both the cases RN-258 of 2001 and RN-259 of 2001 are dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Applications dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1262 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of copy of this order. In the committee in addition to the Chairman, the other members may be the Secretary to the Finance Department and Law Secretary. This committee to decide these matters after hearing the representative of both the parties. In case this committee ultimately fails to resolve this dispute it has to give a reasoned decision and the copy of the same may be given to both the parties. On the request of either of the parties, it has to consider the matter for giving its clearance for the litigation. The compliance of this order be reported to the court. It is a dispute between the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, the parties are to bear their own costs. 10.. Further it is expected of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur that till these matters are finally decided by the committee, the department will not take any step for recovery of the sales tax assessed against the Union of India. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1261 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... However, the department assessed the tax on the gross turnover of Rs. 8,85,500 and determined the tax of Rs. 63,313.25 paise. The reason that the vendor of the petitioner did not pay the assessed tax cannot be a valid ground to disallow the claim of the petitioner. We say this because under the statute, if the vendor is alone is liable to be taxed and if he fails to discharge the said liability, it is always open for the authorities under the Act to proceed against him and recover the same by the mode known to law. But that circumstance can never be a valid and tenable ground to disallow the exemption claimed by the petitioner. 5.. In that view of the matter and having regard to the judgment of this Court in State of A.P. v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. 1986 62 STC 71, we allow this tax revision case and set aside the order of the Tribunal and we declare that the petitioner/assessee is entitled to the exemption in respect of the disputed turnover. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1260 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eration of other items particularly items Nos. 4, 6 and 7 to which a new cement industry may correspond otherwise also then under item No. 1-E, by holding that if the new industrial unit falls in item No. 1E and also in item Nos. 4, 6 or 7 as the case may be, it shall be entitled to that benefit which is more beneficial to it than confining it to the least extent. The very fact that a new industrial unit notwithstanding falling in the general category is considered to be separate class for making available larger incentives because of the area in which it is established or the capital which it has invested in such area coupled with employment opportunity offered to the people, or the foreign exchange it earns, there is no reason to withhold such benefit to a cement industry falling into specified clause by confining it to general clause under item No. 1-E. 55.. As a result, the revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1259 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provision for its refund after assessment would not make the levy as valid and competent by the State Legislature when the power to levy such tax vests exclusively with the Union in List I. 18.. For the aforesaid additional reasons and various reasons given by the Supreme Court and other High Courts in the cases (supra), we allow this petition and strike down provisions contained in section 57B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 holding it to be beyond legislative competence of the State Legislature. Amount of tax as TDS has already been deducted from the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 41,68,380. The said amount deducted and any such further deduction of TDS at the rate of 2 per cent made from the petitioner, shall be refunded to the petitioners by the State within outer limit of one month from the date of this order. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of this petition which is assessed at Rs. 2,000. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1258 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... materials for execution of the works contract and when the property in such goods is passed on to the contractee by the contractor while executing such works. The petitioners have not placed any material before this Court to show that no transfer of property in the goods is involved in execution of the works contract. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 10.. The validity of a provision in the statute can be assailed only on two grounds, as held by the apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell and Co. AIR 1996 SC 1627, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or any other substantive constitutional provisions. No argument has been advanced in respect of any of the above grounds. 11.. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned provisions of the Act, Rules and forms fails. The petitions only partly succeed to the extent of reading down rule 62AAA(4) read with rule 24B(f) and particulars to be filled in columns (6), (11) and (12) in prescribed form 45C. They have to be read in the manner aforesaid in their application to the importers of specified goods. The departmental circulars dated September 12, 2000 and October 11, 2000 containing instructions to the taxing authorities contrary to our decision rendered herein are hereby quashed. The respondents and their authorities are directed to issue fresh departmental circulars or executive instructions in accordance with our decision and dispel, in future, any misunderstanding or confusion on the question of requirement of furnishing details and particulars by the importer and transporter. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. In the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs in these petitions. Petitions partly allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1256 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nment Gazette of September 14, 1999. The petitioner claims to have noticed the notification of September 14, 1999. It had thereupon submitted the application. Since there was confusion in the office of the Government itself, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The notification having been actually published on September 14, 1999 also, the petitioner is entitled to take advantage of the provisions of rule 6(a). It submitted the application within the period as prescribed. The application could not have, thus, been dismissed on the ground of delay. 8.. Even otherwise, the petitioner is for the present only wanting its claim to be considered on merits. If it is eligible, it should not suffer on account of some default which is not wholly attributable to it. 9.. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition. We set aside the impugned orders. The petitioner s application shall now be considered on merits and decided in accordance with law. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1255 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ove finding, the decisions of the apex Court relied upon by the petitioner are not of any help. 8.. The learned Government Pleader relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1997 106 STC 387. Though in the clauses of the contract it was provided that the property in goods is transferred to the owner upon the payment of the first instalment itself, in respect of the ships that were built by the petitioner-company, it was held that it is not a works contract, but it is only a sale of ship supplied by the petitioner-company. The terms used in the contract are explained that they were used in a limited sense so as to prevent the builder from dealing with in any other manner. The said decision rendered by this Court was upheld by the apex Court. 9.. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present tax revision case and, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1254 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be judged on its own merits and on its peculiar facts. .....We, therefore, do not at this stage express any opinion one way or the other on those charges and expenses as to whether or not they will form part of the contractual transfer price. (Reproduced from the judgment of the Supreme Court 1996 103 STC 477 at page 484) 8.. Assessee has not clearly brought out the nature of the labour expenses as loading charges. Under the circumstances, the finding given by the authorities below has to be accepted. Accordingly, it is held that the loading charges would also form part of pre-sale expenditure. 9.. Otherwise also, we feel that the amount of royalty paid to the Government or the departments of Government which is passed on to the customers forms part of the total sale price of the goods which is exigible to levy of sales tax. 10.. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1253 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , operates them and then dismantles them and brings them back after the period of hiring, in such an event the possession and effective control never leaves the petitioner and the customer never gets the right to the use of equipment. In such an event there is no deemed sale attracting tax under section 5C. The undisputed facts in this case disclose that the transaction of the petitioners falls under the second category and therefore, the transactions are not transfer of use of goods amounting to deemed sales exigible to tax under section 5-C of the Act. 11.. The petitions are, therefore, allowed and the impugned notices dated November 25, 1999 and June 5, 2000 (annexure A) in both the writ petitions are quashed. It is made clear that if the petitioner carries on any transaction of the nature falling under para 10(i) above, the assessing authority will be at liberty to take action to bring such transactions to tax under section 5-C, in accordance with law. Petitions allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1252 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. 11.. By virtue of the above provisions in the CST Act the concessional rate of tax applicable under the provisions of APGST Act in terms of the above two A.P. Government orders is applicable under the provisions of the CST Act also. 12.. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, we allow these appeals and set aside the orders under appeal and restore the orders of the concerned assessing officers with no order as to costs. 13.. It is stated that during the pendency of these appeals, as per the interim directions of this Court in C.M.P. No. 17132 of 1993 dated November 4, 1993 in Special Appeal No. 1 of 1993 and in C.M.P. No. 17286 of 1993 dated November 6, 1993 in Special Appeal No. 2 of 1993, the appellants in the above two appeals have paid 50 per cent of the differential tax. By virtue of this order, the appellants in the above two appeals are entitled to seek refund or adjustment in accordance with the law. Appeals allowed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 1251 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... the erroneous conclusion that the assessment made is a best judgment assessment under section 12(1-A) of the Act. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated May 28, 2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority and as the assessee is prepared to produce all the records, an opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce the records and verify the details and thereafter, if need bee, issue a pre-revision notice under section 16 of the Act and pass order after considering the objection filed by the assessee if any, in accordance with law. The Original Petition is disposed of on the above terms. As the Original Petition is disposed of, the original miscellaneous petition does not survive. 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 23rd day of July, 2001. Petition disposed of accordingly
........
|
