|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 473 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 581 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Taxes. Thereafter even if the respondent-trader who is from Indore has sold these goods to some trader in Orissa then in any case the Department of Commercial Taxes at Rajasthan would be able to realise the sale tax for the sale of these goods from Uma Shankar Oil Mills as it could be noticed that the sales tax for this transaction has already been paid by the respondent M/s. B.K. Traders, Indore, to Uma Shankar Oil Mills at Rajasthan. The counsel for the respondent has also produced a photo copy of the receipt for this transaction which clearly shows that the sales tax on these goods have already been paid to Uma Shankar Oil Mills at Rajasthan. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also the Rajasthan Tax Board are therefore wholly justified in setting aside the imposition of penalty alleging evasion of sales tax on this transaction of sale. The impugned orders therefore does not require any interference and hence this revision petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 580 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rrived at by my sister Mrs. Sharma, J. that the incentives proposed in the Industrial Policy of Assam, 1991 cannot be taken away or abridged in any manner before the expiry of the period of concession promised to the industrial units. On this context, it has to be seen whether the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995 in any manner has adversely affected the concessions proposed in the Industrial Policy of 1991. 8.. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the respondent-State is bound by the promissory estoppels and the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits. The petitioner is entitled to tax concessions under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995 for the raw materials namely, black tea from the date of commercial production and till the expiry of the eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries. The respondent-sales tax authority shall do the needful. 9.. The writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 579 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the market for distinguishing between firewood and other kinds of wood. Firewood, in common parlance and as understood by the trade as well as by the consuming public, is not just any wood that can be used as logs of fuel. Firewood is wood of a kind which has attained notoriety as fuel. Where the wood is not, in the normally accepted commercial practice, firewood, and more especially, where the wood is sold and purchased subject to specifications which conduce the wood to particular purposes other than fuel, the goods sold cannot be regarded as firewood. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the binding decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1500 of 1985 and 3118-19 of 1985, the order of the Special Tribunal requires no interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is closed. Writ petition dismissed. See 2003 130 STC 41.
-
2002 (12) TMI 578 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a notice demanding tax and interest based on valid statutory provisions. I do not think the several other decisions cited by the petitioners should be gone into because in no such case the court had occasion to consider the sufferings of a party on account of want of information of law on the subject. Ignorance of law is not a ground to invalidate an order validly issued. I do not think the original petitions are to be entertained. Therefore they are liable to be dismissed and I do so. However, in view of the contentions raised, and the failure on the part of the department to enforce the amendment in time by demanding differential tax based on monthly returns, the petitioners are granted six weeks time to file revised returns and pay difference in tax, and if they fail to do so, it is open to the department to take penal action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Order on C.M.P. No. 55025 of 2002 in O.P. No. 28475 of 2002 dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 577 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be of a recurring nature and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy. 26.. In our opinion since the facts are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in BPL Ltd. case 2001 121 STC 450 (2001) UPTC 246 this writ petition has to be allowed. The impugned directive dated March 18, 2002, annexure 1 to the writ petition, circular dated 21st March, 2002, annexure 2 to the writ petition, orders dated March 23, 2002, annexure 3 and the order dated July 18, 2002, annexure 16 to the writ petition are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner s photocopiers as electronic goods under the Central Sales Tax Act and U.P. Trade Tax Act and assess them accordingly. Any amount deposited by the petitioner under the interim order of this Court shall be refunded to it within a month from today. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 576 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oubt the revision petitioner has raised several contentions and filed written objections before the assessing authority, which has not been considered and therefore the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rightly remanded the matter for fresh disposal. For the abovesaid reasons, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is justified in directing the remand of the case to the Entertainments Tax Officer instead of nullifying the order. He is also further justified in holding that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the High Court and the Supreme Court should be excluded and the assessment orders passed now are not barred by limitation. For the above circumstances, there are no merits in the revision petitions and all the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 11.. In the result, all the revision petitions are dismissed confirming the impugned common order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada, dated October 9, 1998. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 575 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cope for exercise of discretion but it is judicial discretion. 21.. Considering all such facts and circumstances and having regard to the discussion as made above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively as well as the judgment and order dated April 6, 2001, passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. R.N. 346 of 2000 need be modified and the order imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, subsequently reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs, stands set aside. With such observation the instant application under article 226 of the Constitution of India be disposed of. 22.. There is no order as to costs. 23.. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Reported in 2003 131 STC 485 (WBTT). 24.. Respondents are directed to refund the penalty, amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs, assuming that the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lakhs have already been returned, within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.-I agree.
-
2002 (12) TMI 574 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as set up. If it starts manufacturing the items for which it had applied for the exemption certificate during the period of nine years of its validity, we are clearly of the view that it shall be entitled to claim exemption in regard to those items as well. 7.. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Higher Level Screening Committee fixing the date of commencement of benefits from the date of issue of exemption certificate quashed and it is directed to grant the benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date when the industrial unit went into commercial production. The Higher Level Screening Committee is also directed to include in the items of manufacture the product of caps for which the petitioner had made an application. The directions hereinabove be carried out expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 573 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he turnover of sales is assessable to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, at the instance of the sales tax authorities at Faridabad. The amount of tax which the respondent has wrongly paid to the sales tax authorities at Delhi on such inter-State sales from April 1, 1961, to September 30, 1965, shall have to be transferred by the sales tax authorities at Delhi to the sales tax authorities at Faridabad, as directed by the High Court. 37.. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed and liberty is given to the first respondent to set-off the general sales tax already paid by the petitioner as against the entry tax payable for the nine vehicles concerned and issue appropriate orders in this respect within a period of four weeks from today. This writ petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings including imposition of penalty. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 572 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the purchase of Exim scrips/REP licences by the writ petitioner-Bank in terms of the circular dated March 18, 1992, issued by the Reserve Bank of India does not bring it within the scope and ambit of section 4(6)(iii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Consequently, there will be an injunction restraining the respondents and their servants and agents from giving any effect or further effect to the purported orders dated June 30, 1995, September 19, 1996 and February 11, 1998 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively for the period comprising four quarters ending on March 31, 1993 under the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act. The writ petitioners are discharged from the undertaking given for the purpose of continuation of the interim order initially passed. 60.. Having regard to the facts involved, there will be no order as to costs. 61.. All parties to act on xerox signed copy of this judgment on the usual undertakings. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 571 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s well as the semi-solid condition which it attains. The gel , manufactured by the assessee, nowhere fits in with the process of manufacturing hydrogenated edible oil. For that matter, the gel can never be used for cooking purpose in the kitchen. 13.. It may be of relevance to notice here that if the gel manufactured by the petitioner could at all appropriately fit anywhere in the Second Schedule, then it can only be under entry 21 of Part C which reads confectionery, cakes and biscuits . But, since neither the department nor the assessee has taken up any such stand, there is no occasion for me to hold so. So far as the view taken by Gururajan, J., that it is impermissible for the assessee or the department to make out a new case on facts in the revision is concerned, I am in entire agreement with him. 14.. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the assessee is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 570 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of Income-tax, Gujarat-I v. Karamchand Premchand Private Ltd. 1969 74 ITR 254 (Guj) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. 1985 151 ITR 499 (Guj) FB ). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. 8.. The reframed question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee. We remand the proceedings to the Tribunal for consideration of the new grounds raised by the assessee on the merits.
-
2002 (12) TMI 569 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anning Department, it is not open to the Lower Level Screening Committee to withdraw the eligibility certificate on the ground of non-production of the certificate regarding change of land use. In this view of the matter, neither the Higher Level Screening Committee nor the Lower Level Screening Committee were justified in withdrawing the certificate merely because the petitioner had failed to produce the certificate from the Town and Country Planning Department regarding change of land use. The view that we have taken finds support from a division Bench judgment of this Court in R.K. Mittal Woollen Mills v. State of Haryana 2001 123 STC 248 (2000) 15 PHT 261. 5.. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders withdrawing the eligibility certificate of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated November 26, 1998 and February 6, 2001 are quashed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 568 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h levy under the Finance Act. Once we come to the conclusion that this is the intention of the legislation then the rule general provision should yield to special provision is squarely attracted. 14.. This Court also cannot overlook the provisions of U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 which has been enacted for molasses only whereas the U.P. Trade Tax Act, applies to all commodities but as the special Act has been enacted for a particular purpose, i.e., for the purpose of molasses the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act which are applicable in general, cannot prevail over the specific law enforced for the molasses. 15.. In view of what has been discussed above, the revisions are liable to be allowed. 16.. Therefore, the revisions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated October 26, 1999 passed by the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, as contained in annexure 1 to the revisions, is set aside and the consequences will follow. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 567 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Joint Commissioner by his order dated 2.11.1995. As against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal in T.C.(A) No.4 of 1997 before the Special Tribunal. When the appeal was pending, the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 7.8.1991 in the year 1998 by filing Original Petition under Section 7 of the Special Tribunal Act. We find no error in the order of the Special Tribunal in dismissing the O.P for the reasons stated therein. When the order dated 7.8.1991 has been revised in the year 1995 and the revised order was also taken on appeal in the year 1997 and pending before the Special Tribunal, the petitioner cannot challenge the order dated 7.8.1991 in O.P. We have recorded our finding already on merits also. Hence there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is also liable to be dismissed on the point of laches also. 14. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 566 - ITAT AMRITAR
... ...
... ... ..... t in the case of Fifth Generation Education Society v. CIT 1990 185 ITR 634 wherein it has been held that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax was required to see as to whether the objects of the trust were charitable or not. He is further required to see as to whether the application was made in accordance with the requirements of section 12A read with rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Furthermore, it has been held in the aforesaid case that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not required to examine the application of income. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in refusing registration to the assessee merely on the basis that the trust deed was not registered with Registrar of Societies or with the Registrar of Documents. We accordingly reverse his order and direct him to grant registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 565 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ) is in the affirmative. rdquo Having regard to the above, I am of the view that in the light of the law as it existed during the year under consideration, the learned Accountant Member was fully justified in holding that the assessee should be entitled to depreciation as well as investment allowance on the enhanced liability in respect of the cost of the assets concerned due to fluctuation in the exchange rate. This view is further fortified by the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192 wherein it was held that if the court finds that the language of the taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then the court has to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so when the provision relates to the imposition of penalty. I, therefore, concur with the learned Accountant Member. The matter will go before the regular Bench for decision, according to majority opinion.
-
2002 (12) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT
Writ petition laying challenge to the order of termination - view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed - Held that:- Appeal allowed. As in the present case the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.
-
2002 (12) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT
A revised Development plan however came into being on 20th February, 1996. It is not in dispute that respondents who claim ownership of the lands in question issued notices in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the said Act, asking the State Government to acquire the properties in terms thereof. - The High Court upon taking into consideration the provisions of the said Act and upon consideration of the rival contentions raised therein came to the conclusion that issuance of a draft revised plan by itself does not put an embargo on the application of sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Said Act.
-
2002 (12) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT
Advocates Act - Whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of Court/s - strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal – Held that:- Resort to strike is because the administration is having deaf ears in listening to the genuine grievances and even if grievances are heard appropriate actions are not taken - whatever be the situation in other fields lawyers cannot claim or justify to go on strike or give a call to boycott the judicial proceedings - by the very nature of their calling to aid and assist in the dispensation of justice, lawyers normally should not resort to strike - it had been repeatedly held that strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice
instead of resorting to strike, the Bar would find out other ways and means of redressing their grievances including passing of resolutions, making representations and taking out silent processions, holding dharmas or to resort to relay fast, having discussion by giving TV interviews and press statements - If action is required to be taken on the grievances made by the advocates it should be immediately taken - strike by advocate/advocates would be considered interference with the administration of justice and advocate/advocates concerned may be barred from practicing before courts in a district or in the High Court
........
|
