|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 473 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 602 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 601 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hall also consider the contents of this petition duringpendency of the petition. The concerned authority shallnot pass any order adverse to the petitioners in themeantime. If the authority is satisfied that the noticesare bad in law, it would be open to him to takeappropriate action. Direct service is permitted so faras other respondents are concerned.
-
2002 (12) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hild of his parents." In the light of such an express mandate of the legislature itself, there is no room for according upon such children who but for Section 16 would have been branded as illegitimate any further rights than envisaged therein by resorting to any presumptive or inferential process of reasoning, having recourse to the mere object or purpose of enacting Section 16 of the Act. Any attempt to do so would amount to doing not only violence to the provision specifically engrafted in Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act but also would attempt to court relegislating on the subject under the guise of interpretation, against even the will expressed in the enactment itself. Consequently, we are unable to countenance the submissions on behalf of the appellants. The view taken by the courts below cannot be considered to suffer from any serious infirmity to call for our interference, in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or not even if the transaction has resulted in a member of a aboriginal tribe being defrauded of his legitimate right. The expression employed by the Division Bench while dealing with legislative history of the enactment cannot be pressed in service for supporting the submission seeking to restrict and narrow down the application of the provision. It is not necessary to refer to Sections 165, 168 and 170-A as it is unnecessary, in our opinion. The petition filed by the writ petitioner before the High Court was entirely misconceived and, in a way, premature. The show cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The appellant should have participated in the enquiry after showing cause. Instead he chose to rush post haste to the High Court. The High Court rightly turned down the writ petition. The appeal is held devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly though without any order as to the costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... engers, the owner of a goods carriage need not take out an insurance policy, they would be deemed to have been covered under the policy wherefor even no premium is required to be paid. We may consider the matter from another angle. Section 149 (2) of the 1988 Act enables the insurers to raise defences against the claim of the claimants. In terms of clause (c) of sub section 2 of Section 149 of the Act one of the defences which is available to the insurer is that the vehicle in question has been used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle was used. Such a statutory defence available to the insurer would be obliterated in view of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh’s case (supra). For the foregoing reasons, I am in respectful agreement with My Lord the Chief Justice of India that the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 237 has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled.
-
2002 (12) TMI 597 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d committed 3 (three) defaults in payment of excise duty is misplaced and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 17. It is also a well settled principle of law that the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly do and the said principle is well expressed in legal maxim “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” which is squarely attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners if resulted in non-payment of excise duty, such circumstance cannot be construed to mean that it failed to pay the excise duty on the due date. 18. In the above view of the matter, payment of excise duty on 21st January, 2002 has to be treated as payment made on the due date as per the rules applicable in this behalf. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 19. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms prayer clauses (a) and (b) with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 596 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ile returns and comply with statutory provisions. All the impugned proceedings stand vacated to enable the petitioners to comply with the statutory provisions of making application for registration, remitting registration fee, filing returns, etc. from 1.4.2001 onwards. The petitioners are granted three months from now to apply for registration, to file returns up-to-date, pay tax, if any, falling which the department is free to take coercive action including penal action. In view of the stay granted by this Court and continuously available to the petitioners and the introduction of explanation to the notification prospectively, I hold the petitioners cannot be called upon to pay penalty or interest for belated payment of registration fee or tax, if any payable, provided they comply with the above formalities in three months -from now. They need to register, file returns etc. only from the financial year 2001-2002 onwards. The O.Ps. are disposed of with the above directions.
-
2002 (12) TMI 595 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rther, second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the learned Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out or not. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The matter shall now go back to the learned Magistrate who shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. This appeal thus stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eby induces others to do that which they otherwise might have abstained from, he cannot question legality of the act he had sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct. It cannot be doubted that there may be cases in which there is deception by omission, silence may be treated as deception only where there is a duty to speak; in other words as Biglow points out in his book "Biglow on Fraud" (Volume 1 at page 597), ground of liability arises wherever and only where silence can be considered as having an active properly that of misleading. In view of the factual conclusions arrived at by the High Court, which are perfectly in order, the appeals are bound to fail. The rule of estoppel has clear application, and in view of this finding it is not necessary to go into the question whether Explanation 6 of Section 11 C.P.C. has any application or not. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 593 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under section 5(3) of the Act. The clarification of the Commissioner to the contrary is unsustainable. In principle, the Commissioner 39 s finding that section 5(1)(v)(a) applies to the purchasing dealer and is an independent charging section, is correct. However, his finding that the said section applies also to purchases covered by section 5(3) is incorrect, because rate of tax under the charging provision in the Fifth Schedule for sales covered by section 5(3) is the rate provided in column (8) of the Fifth Schedule and not column (4). In the circumstances, the clarification is declared wrong and the petitioner is not liable to pay tax under section 5(1)(v)(a) in respect of the purchase turnover of timber used for manufacture and purchased against form 18. The assessing officer is directed to modify exhibit P1 assessment deleting the demand under section 5(1)(v)(a) in respect of purchase turnover covered by section 5(3). The original petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 592 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s belonging to the assessee have been attached and that sale of the same is deferred only because of the interim order passed by this Court in T.R.C. No. 529 of 2001. The counsel also submits that the assessee had already paid 50 per cent of the demand for the year 1994-95 as per the conditional order passed by this Court. He accordingly submitted that all further proceedings for the sale of the movable properties already attached may be directed to be deferred till the disposal of the appeal afresh by the Tribunal pursuant to this judgment. Now that we have set aside the order of the Tribunal, the assessee is free to move the Tribunal for stay. However, the sale of the moveables already attached will be deferred for a period of three months from today. This is to enable the assessee to move the Tribunal for further stay. These tax revision cases are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 6444 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 529 of 2001 dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (12) TMI 590 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... heck-post authorities in proceedings under section 29-A of the Act. The view taken by the learned single Judge to the contrary is also to be set aside. 6.. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. 7.. The first and second appellants are entitled to demand security from the respondent herein as demanded in the impugned notice. However, since the goods were ordered to be released without any security and since the respondent got release of the goods without furnishing security the appellants can obtain security bonds without sureties as contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 29-A as a special case and take steps for adjudicating the matter under section 29-A(4) of the Act without delay. The respondent will furnish security as directed above for the amounts specified in the notices exhibit P1 series and exhibit P4 series within two months. This writ appeal is disposed of as above. Writ appeal allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 589 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Government is concerned, the Supreme Court has directed that it would be a condition precedent to obtain a certificate from the High Power Committee before commencing a litigation by the Central Government undertakings against the Central Government. Considering the fact that the petitioner had to approach three different authorities and ultimately this Court has to resolve the dispute, we are of the view that it will be worthwhile for the State Government to consider to set up an independent machinery to resolve the disputes that may arise between the State Government and its own undertakings. 7.. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed holding that the sale of the food products of the petitioner without brand name did not attract the entry 103 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act during the assessment years in question. The writ petitions stand allowed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 588 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nataka 1998 111 STC 752 (1998) 7 JT 370 (SC) held that the sales of unredeemed goods, being incidental to the business of pawn broker, was liable to sales tax. These decisions are also indicative of the fact that disputes may arise in regard to the liability to tax on a transaction at the assessment stage. It is in order to obviate any such dispute and/or adjudication of such dispute at the assessment stage rule 32(13) of the Rules has prescribed a particular mode of establishing the nature of the transaction. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the authorities and the Tribunal were perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ground that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements of rule 32(13) of the KGST Rules. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Reported as Lord Krishna Bank Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment I), Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle 1999 114 STC 333 (Ker).Ed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 587 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned proceedings stand vacated to enable the petitioners to comply with the statutory provisions of making application for registration, remitting registration fee, filing returns, etc. from April 1, 2001 onwards. The petitioners are granted three months from now to apply for registration, to file returns up-to-date, pay tax, if any, falling which the department is free to take coercive action including penal action. In view of the stay granted by this Court and continuously available to the petitioners and the introduction of explanation to the notification prospectively, I hold the petitioners cannot be called upon to pay penalty or interest for belated payment of registration fee or tax, if any payable, provided they comply with the above formalities in three months from now. They need to register, file returns etc., only from the financial year 2001-2002 onwards. The original petitions are disposed of with the above directions. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (12) TMI 586 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tate trade and commerce the sales tax authorities are prohibited from imposing tax on maintenance charges received by the petitioner the Tribunal felt that the said issue requires to be re-examined by the assessing authority. Necessary directions were issued in that regard. It was also observed that if the assessee is maintaining proper books of accounts and supporting documents which discloses the labour and service charges there is no question of making any percentage deduction. The assessing authority was directed to consider this. The Tribunal had only remitted the question for consideration by the assessing authority. We do not find any illegality in the said direction. However, we make it clear that the assessing authority is free to consider the said issue on merits independently in the light of the direction issued by the Tribunal and take a decision in the matter. These tax revision cases are also dismissed with the observation made hereinabove. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 585 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ermined only by the revised order giving effect to the first appellate authoritys order. It is only that order which has to be set aside. The last contention of the Senior Counsel was that when two separate procedures are provided for getting at escaped turnover one under section 19 and the other under section 35 the stringent procedure must give way to the less stringent also is without any substance in view of the legal position that the powers conferred on the assessing authority under section 19 for reopening the assessment and the powers conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under section 35 of the Act are distinct and different and a valid exercise of the revisional power is not an infringement of the power of assessing escaped turnover. For the reasons state above, the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the said order and sustain the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The tax revision case is allowed as above. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 584 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the alternative remedy. 27.. As I have already accepted the first point urged on behalf of the petitioners, the orders passed by the assessing authorities as well as that of the Tribunal have to be set aside for the simple reason that the authorities under the Act have not considered the question as to whether the sale of hydrogenated oil having taken place in the local area was for the purpose of consumption or use as stated above or it was sold or re-exported for taking the goods to a place outside the local area. The authorities should consider that question before fixing the liability of tax under the provisions of the Act. 28.. Accordingly, the impugned orders, as contained in annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application, are quashed and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority to determine the tax liability in the light of the observation made in this judgment. 29.. In the result, the writ application is allowed. R.S. GARG, J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 583 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt in Hotel Elites case 1988 69 STC 119 Here italicised. (1987) 2 KLT 959. The Tribunal has also referred to the fact that in F.L.3 licence the heading of the licence itself is hotel (restaurant) licence and that the licence provides for sale of every kind of foreign liquor which can be sold to residents in the hotels and to guests or to casual visitors eating in the hotel and that this is the only licence for retail sale of liquor in a hotel or restaurant. The assessee in this case was issued F.L.3 licence with effect from April 1, 1998. On the basis of the afore-mentioned discussion, we have necessarily to hold that the assessee, who was issued only F.L.13 licence during the relevant period in question, cannot be classified as Bar attached Hotel and hence, the order of the Deputy Commissioner in revision taking a contrary view is not valid or justifiable. In the circumstances, we confirm the view expressed by the Tribunal and dismiss these revisions. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 582 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r during the year . 9.. We are unable to understand as to how this decision also will help the revenue. Yet another decision relied on by the revenue is S. Ramanatha Shenoy and Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Tellicherry 1963 14 STC 231. In that case also provisions of section 3(2) of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 was challenged and this Court upheld the said provision. The said decision also has no relevance in so far as the question involved in this case. We are of the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly held that the surcharge paid by the assessee on the sales tax determined under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act in the previous year cannot be reckoned for the purpose of determining the tax at the compounded rate payable under the provisions of section 7(1)(a) of the Act and in directing exclusion of the surcharge paid. We do not find any merit in this Tax Revision Case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
........
|
