|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 649 Records
-
2002 (1) TMI 1291 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... heard Mr. Sawhney. He contends that the income derived by the assessee was not being utilised for any charitable purpose. Thus, exemption under section 11 could not have been granted. 5. A perusal of the order of assessment shows that the exemption has been denied to the assessee only on the ground that a charitable trust could not run a business. This view was not accepted by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The view taken by the two authorities is in conformity with the rule laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (supra). Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the contention as now sought to be raised was ever canvassed before the Tribunal. 6. Resultantly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, there would be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1290 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 5 as well. Yet the respondent No. 5 applied again because he knew that a reappraisal by a new Selection Committee at a later point of time might yield a different result. As for the failure to keep any record as to the grading of the candidates under Statute 15, the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee in making recommendations are required to be such as may be laid down in the Ordinances. No Ordinance was drawn to our notice which prescribes a particular mode of rating the respective merits of the candidates. When appointments are being made to posts as high as that of a Professor, it may not be necessary to give marks as the means of assessment. But whatever the method of measurement of suitability used by the Selection Committee, it was an unanimous decision and the Courts will, in the circumstances obtaining in this case, have to respect that. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the High Court and allow the appeal but without any order as to costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1289 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) , these appeals do not survive for consideration. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1288 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en some seven days after this incident. Information of the offence is conveyed to a police station and yet investigation by the A.C.B. is taken up as late as March 1987. Nothing incriminating has been found with the Petitioner.? We have perused the records and we agree with the above views expressed by the High Court. We find that in the alleged trap no police agency was involved; the FIR was lodged after seven days; no incriminating articles were found in the possession of the accused and statements of witnesses were recorded by police after ten months of the occurrence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that not to speak of grave suspicion against the accused, in fact prosecution has not been able to throw any suspicion. We, therefore, hold that no prima facie case was made against the appellant. We find merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and consequently the criminal proceeding against the appellant is quashed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1287 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hin the period of limitation. It is also not disputed that the transferee was always and still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Further, the view taken by the High Court in judgment under appeal was overruled by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahadeo Nathuji Patil vs. Surajbai Khushal Chand Lakkad & Ors. - 1994 Maharashtra Law Journal, 1145, which, according to our view, lay down the correct view of law. In that view of the matter these appeals deserve to be allowed. Since the High Court has allowed the appeals solely on the ground that the remedy for bringing a suit for specific performance is lost, therefore, the defendant is not entitle to protect his possession under Section 53-A of the Act, we, after setting aside the judgment under challenge, send the matters back to the High Court to decide any other question of law, if arises in these appeals. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State." The language is clear. It only deals with the question of supremacy and not competence. In respect of conflicting legislation under the Concurrent List, if the State Legislation has received the assent of the President, it will prevail over the Central Legislation in that State. The Article does not provide that State Legislation without the assent of the President is incompetent. In the circumstances I would hold that ITC vs. State of Karnataka (Supra) was wrongly decided and would for the reasons discussed uphold the competence of the State Legislatures to levy market fee on tobacco.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1284 - SUPREME COURT
Offence pitted against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - dishonor of two sets of cheques - Held that:- The total amount covered by the cheques involved in the present two cases was Rs. 4,50,000. There is no case for the respondent that the said amount had been paid either during the pendency of the cases before the trial court or revision before the High Court or this Court. If the amounts had been paid to the complainant there perhaps would have been justification for imposing a flee-bite sentence as had been chosen by the trial court. But in a case where the amount covered by the cheque remained unpaid it should be the look out of the trial Magistrates that the sentence for the offence under Section 138 should be of such a nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation. No drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of the cheque issued by him light heartedly. The very object of enactment of provisions like Section 138 of the Act would stand defeated if the sentence is of the nature passed by the trial Magistrate. It is a different matter if the accused paid the amount atleast during the pendency of the case. Remit the case back to the trial court
-
2002 (1) TMI 1283 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s case 1995 96 STC 355 (SC) without referring to contents of notification. The decision in Ajay Polymers (P) Ltd. (1995) IV STO 178 RTT has no relevance in considering the notification dated March 7, 1994. As noticed by us, the question whether any goods, or class of goods or a category of goods are exempt from tax or subjected to lower rate of tax generally or such exemption or concession in rate is subject to certain specified conditions or in specified circumstances, has to be determined with reference to particular notification issued under State Sales Tax Law before arriving at conclusion about extending such exemption under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, 1956. 40.. This appeal is allowed and the judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is also allowed. The impugned assessment order annexure 3 annexed with the writ petition is also set aside. Demand notice in pursuance thereof shall stand discharged. 41.. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1282 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... no longer be in a position to claim exemption. 32.. Consequently, we also agree with Mr. Bajoria that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could not travel beyond the scope of the powers contained in rule 101 which empowered him to declare an eligibility certificate to be invalid from the date of the order or from a subsequent date, but not with retrospective effect. We are, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Dutta s submission that in the facts of the case the learned Tribunal adopted a pedantic approach and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. 33.. The writ application is accordingly dismissed, but this will not prevent the authorities from taking any further action in the matter in accordance with law. 34.. There will be no order as to costs. 35.. If an urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for, the same is to be supplied expeditiously, subject to compliance with all the required formalities. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1281 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t High Court, which has been relied upon by Mr. Jetly reported in 2000 120 STC 510 (Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. State of Gujarat). In that case, while dealing with Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, wherein the provisions are similar to the BST Act, 1959 it was held that if the conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction after 5 years are not fulfilled, then the reassessment would be invalid. It was further noted in the said judgment that the words used in the section are reason to believe and not reason to suspect . In the present case admittedly, the reasons for reopening was the doubt or suspicion gathered in 1987 by the officer on perusal of the records on the basis of which assessment order was passed in 1982. Such a case where the reopening is based on doubt or conjecture or surmises, is not covered under section 35(1)(b) of the BST Act, 1959. 14.. In the premises aforesaid, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition with costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1280 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee to produce the requisite evidence to show the payment of turnover tax by the dealer at the second point of sale. The above decision was referred to in a division Bench decision of this Court in T.R.C. No. 32 of 2000 (Mahavir Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala 2002 126 STC 212). 4.. The Tribunal itself has found that the petitioner is the last purchaser. With regard to arecanut, the petitioner has paid tax. According to us, this item of evidence would show that the petitioner is not the penultimate purchaser. The assessment itself will show that the assessment order itself has identified the penultimate purchaser. The burden of proof is on the assessee. Hence in this case, the burden of proof has been discharged. Hence, the petitioner is liable to be exempted from paying the turnover tax on arecanut. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The revision is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 1293 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 80 of 2001 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1279 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r word steps in which require interference by the court in finding out the real meaning of the word specified in a particular notification or the Schedule as the case may be. The use of one word may include more than one commodity though not specified. It is with this approach, the courts have to interpret the words used and specified in the Schedule and then find out its real meanings, and true scope in relation to those commodities which are not so specified. Keeping in view these wellsettled rules of interpretation, I have come to conclusion that the word primer can be taxed as paint within the meaning of entry No. 20 of Part II of Schedule II. 20.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ. As a consequence the view taken by the Commissioner that the primer is taxable under entry No. 20 of Part II of Schedule II, of Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (since repealed) is upheld. Petition fails and is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1278 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re. It is a department of the Government serving itself as also the other departments of the Government. In this situation, the activity of the assessee does not fall within the mischief of trade . The press is not a dealer . 12. In view of the above, we find that the press is not carrying on the business of buying and selling goods so as to make it a dealer as defined in section 2(c) of the Act. The disposal of waste paper through public auction is not ancillary or incidental to the job of supplying articles of stationery to the departments of the Government. It does not fall within the definition of trade . In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the orders of assessment and penalty. 13.. No other point has been raised. 14.. Thus, all the three questions as referred by the Tribunal are answered against the Revenue. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered against Revenue.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1277 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted. Not being a fundamental right, the infringement of article 301 cannot be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that it violates article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Article 304 of the Constitution enables the State Legislature to impose such reasonable restrictions on the free- dom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest. Supreme Court in Video Electronics Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab 1990 77 STC 82 held that article 304(a) cannot be read in isolation. It is to be read in the context of other provisions in the Constitution and also the obliga- tions of the State under articles 39 and 38 of the Constitution cannot be given a go by. Viewed in the abovementioned legal perspective we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. We fully agree with the view of the learned single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1276 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he imperative need for additional revenue generation for fiscal stabilisation, withdrawal of sales tax incentives in exercise of powers conferred by section 6 of the Act was felt essential in the supervening public interest. In the new and demanding situation, the State Government had to change its earlier policy in the greater public interest with the sole aim of improving the fiscal situation. 11.. On careful consideration of the facts mentioned above, we have no hesitation to hold that the State Government is fully justified in withdrawing the concession in public interest. After all public interest must override the consideration of private loss or gain. From what has been stated above, we also do not find any valid reason for the petitioner to contend that the impugned notification suffers from the vice or arbitrariness or discrimination. In the result, the writ petition merits dismissal. We order accordingly. P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J.-I agree. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1275 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... de staying the recovery in terms of the impugned order made, till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 40 per cent of the amount as on this date as per the schedule mentioned hereunder (a) 20 percent of 40 percent of the amount within one week from today (b) another 20 per cent of 40 per cent, within two weeks thereafter. (c) If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount as directed above, the interim order earlier granted stands vacated. 5.. The Tribunal is directed to take up the appeal of the petitioner for expeditious disposal. The direction given to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal will be binding on the Tribunal if the petitioner deposits 40 per cent of the amount, as directed above. 6.. In terms stated above, this petition is disposed of. 7.. Sri Veda Murthy, learned Government Pleader, is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1274 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the department to prove its case. Alternatively, it was contended that the assessee may be given an opportunity to produce such material to prove its case that the sale effected by the petitioner is not the first sale liable to the local tax. After considering the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as all the relevant material was not brought on record to decide the issue one way or other by applying the principles as stated earlier, and in order to give another opportunity to the assessee to produce the necessary material to prove its case, we are inclined to remit the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and restore the matter to its file for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce such material as it thinks necessary to prove its case. 12.. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1273 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... revent the petitioner from taking recourse of law before the Tribunal under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 and in such case Tribunal will independently adjudge the merit of the matter which is untouched. In any event, any appeal or application, if made, before the Tribunal the same will not be treated as barred by the principle of res judicata or limitation since the merit has not been touched by the court as indicated above. 8.. No order is passed as to costs. This order will govern both the matters being W.P. No. 2496 of 2001 and W.P. No. 2498 of 2001. Xeroxed certified copies of this judgment will be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting requisites for drawing up and completion of the order and certified copy of this judgment. All parties are to act on a signed copy minute of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking and subject to satisfaction of the officer of the court in respect as above. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1272 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under an avoidable burden of depositing the tax which may be in excess of its liability. In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the authority had not acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It had failed to grant due and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, the action is apparently violative of the principles of natural justice. Still further, the action of the authority in imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 lacs was not warranted by the circumstances of the case and the express provisions of law. 8.. Resultantly, we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order dated March 29, 2001 a copy of which is at annexure P-3, is quashed. The case is remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The authority shall ensure that the petitioner is given adequate opportunity to produce the relevant material before it. 9.. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1271 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pumps are machineries and tax is leviable at 16 per cent on their sale are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Sales Tax Tribunal to pass appropriate order keeping in view the observations made in this judgment which may be done within a period of three months of its receipt. The Sales Tax Tribunal will examine if the Orissa Small Industries Corporation (opposite party No. 6) already collected sales tax from the ultimate purchasers and deposited the same in the Government treasury. If it comes to a finding in the affirmative, it is needless to mention that the petitioner cannot be demanded to pay tax once more. We may notice here that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was no specific entry for hand pumps in the taxable list at the relevant time, tax on hand pumps could at the worst be levied at 12 per cent as per residuary entry. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. CH. P.K. MISRA, J.-I agree. Writ petition allowed. Here italicised.
........
|
