|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1302
... ...
... ... ..... antilal Babulal. Since the notice was served on the firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal on June 21, 1982, it becomes clear that the payment was made to the dealer-firm M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas on July 16, 1982, to ward off the liability arising under section 48 of the said Act. Such a subsequent payment to the dealer after the receipt of the notice under section 48 did not absolve the firm of M/s. Patel Jayantilal Babulal of its liability to pay the amount, which was payable by it to M/s. Patel Babulal Parsottamdas, to the Commissioner. There is therefore no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. 7.. From the facts on record, it is clear that the impugned action of the respondents was justified and taken in accordance with law, warranting no interference by this Court. Both the petitions are, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged in each of them with no order as to cost. Interim relief stands vacated in both the matters. Petitions rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... ainst the dealer. We find that in this case the petitioner has taken the stand that no such show cause notice was served on him. The respondent authorities also failed to show from their record issuance of any such show cause notice from their end. In the affidavitinopposition also, such a statement finds place. That being the case, there has been failure to comply with the mandatory provision of the Act and the Rules of 1941 Act. So not only the notice dated July 27, 2000 but also the subsequent assessment order require to be set aside and those are set aside. In view of the same, we do not like to enter into the other point. The application succeeds. The notice dated July 27, 2000 wanting to make fresh assessment and subsequent order dated February 8, 2001 of reassessment passed by respondent No. 1, are set aside. The case is thus disposed of without any order for costs. 3.. This order governs also case Nos. RN94 of 2001, RN95 of 2001 and RN96 of 2001. Application allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1300
... ...
... ... ..... dity of the order of assessment, especially when full facts are not placed before us. 7.. Mr. Verma submits that the Sales Tax Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the sales tax is not leviable on the sale of deoiled rice bran cake. Copies of the orders have been produced before us. It is, however, conceded by the counsel that all the orders relate to the period prior to the issue of the notification dated March 29, 1996. Since the sales tax had not been levied on deoiled rice bran cake, the Tribunal could have taken the views that the item was not subject to the levy of sales tax. However, the learned Here italicised. counsel has not referred to any order relating to the period after the issue of the notification dated March 29, 1996. In this view of the matter, no support can be derived from these orders. No other point has been raised. 8.. In view of the above, we find no merit in these petitions. These are, consequently, dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1299
... ...
... ... ..... to the making of fine varnish and is an important ingredient for preparing wood polish but it is neither paint nor a varnish nor turpentine oil. It has a distinct identity in the commercial world and in common parlance. Admittedly, denatured spirit is not included in the entry in question which for ready reference has been quoted above and it cannot be included therein by fiction merely because it may go into the making of varnish of fine polish. Since it does not fall in the entry in question nor is there any other entry in which it has been specifically included, it follows that it will fall under the residuary entry, which according to the taxing statute covers all other articles unless expressly provided to be tax-free. Accordingly, we do not find any error to have been committed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion it did. The tax revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. P.K. PATRA, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1298
... ...
... ... ..... e only conditions that are to be satisfied are that the person claiming C form is a registered dealer and that the charges for C form were paid and that he produced the challans in proof of having paid the amount for obtaining the C form. Once these conditions are satisfied, the authorities are bound to issue C form. Whether the C forms are properly used or misused, cannot be enquired into at the initial stage of issuance of C forms. If any person misused the C form, he is liable to the penalties as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the authorities which issue C forms have to issue the forms, once they satisfy the above conditions. Therefore, the rejection of the request by the respondent is not justifiable. Under the relevant provisions of law, the petitioner is entitled for 25 C forms, at a time. The petitioner is entitled to get the forms, in accordance with that rule 15(2). 9.. In the result, the writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1297
... ...
... ... ..... enefit as per the Industrial Policy Resolution, the assessee can get the benefit only if there is a notification in terms of section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. In the notification issued under that Act, namely, S.R.O. No. 469/76, item 39 in the exemption list is shown as follows Water but not aerated or mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers. Thus, the position is that mineral water sold in bottle or sealed container does not qualify for exemption under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. In this situation, in view of the decision in Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. State of Orissa 2000 117 STC 64, this Court cannot direct that the exemption should be given even though the exemption as provided for in the Orissa Sales Tax Act does not include mineral water sold in bottle. In this situation, we are satisfied that there is no justification in interfering with annexure 4 communication. The writ petition is hence dismissed. A.S. NAIDU, J.-I agree. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1296
... ...
... ... ..... lding that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that he was not liable to pay the tax. The situation is not different here. We would therefore remand the matter to the Special Tribunal to reconsider the question of penalty in the light of aforementioned judgment in Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd, Tirunelveli v. Commercial Tax Officer, Palayamcottai Assessment Circle, Tirunelveli 2002 125 STC 505 (Mad.). The question of penalty would be fully open before the Special Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with a request to the Tribunal to deal with the matter in the light of the reasoning given by us on the question of penalty. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P. M.Ps are closed. Writ petition allowed. Reported in 2002 125 STC 500 (Mad.) Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer . Reported in 2002 125 STC 505 (Mad.) Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer .
-
2002 (2) TMI 1295
... ...
... ... ..... ders. Even if appeal is maintainable after the pendency of writ petition for about four years, original petition cannot be dismissed in view of the alternate remedy. 8.. Here even according to the department at the time of filing return, it was not untrue or incorrect. All particulars were disclosed in the return also. Petitioner claimed exemption in view of the Karnataka High Court decision. When the above decision was overruled, before assessment petitioner paid the tax. The basic and fundamental factors necessary to attract section 45A(1)(d) of the Act to attract penal provision is conspicuously absent. Since that minimal requirement is not satisfied, the assessee cannot be penalised under section 45A(1)(d). Therefore, exhibit P6 order is illegal and, therefore, I set aside exhibit P6 order and restore the order of the second respondent, i.e., exhibit P3. Original petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 17996 of 1998 in O.P. No. 10482 of 1998 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1294
... ...
... ... ..... 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 thinner can be taxed as turpentine oil within the meaning of entry 20 of Part II of Schedule II. 14.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ. As a consequence the order passed by the Commissioner is upheld though on different reasoning and it is held that thinner is taxable under entry 20 of Part II of Schedule II of the MPGST Act (since repealed). 15.. The petition, thus, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1293
... ...
... ... ..... ourse, the only technical problem is the limitation of 90 days provided for filing appeal from the date of receipt of the order under section 59-A which applies to a person who applied for and obtained the clarification under section 59-A. May be in the case of other aggrieved parties who were not applicants before the Commissioner under section 59-A, limitation may run from the date of knowledge or grievance or in any case the power of this Court to condone the delay under proviso to section 40(1) will come to their rescue. Of course, these are all matters on which the division Bench will pronounce when the situation arises in appeal. I make this observation only to make it clear that the decision on merits in this case should not persuade every aggrieved party to approach this Court under article 226, instead of pursuing the remedy of appeal available under section 40 of the KGST Act. Order on C.M.P. No. 6383 of 2002 in O.P. No. 3583 of 2002 dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1292
... ...
... ... ..... ) and direct opposite party No. 3 to hear the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the petitionercompany. We also make it clear that it would be open for the petitioner to furnish such other materials which they feel just and proper for a full-fledged effectual adjudication of the inter se dispute. The assessment relates to the year 1988. Therefore, we direct the Sales Tax Officer to complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. We further direct that the amount of rupees one crore, said to have been deposited by the petitioner, shall continue to remain in deposit till the matter is finally decided. 11.. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. The matter is remitted back to opposite party No. 3 for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own cost. P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J.-I agree. Writ application allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1291
... ...
... ... ..... 3.. The order dated October 12, 2001 passed by respondent No. 1 is accordingly set aside. It is directed that respondent No. 1 shall release the books of accounts, records and documents seized on October 20, 2001 forthwith. The application is thus allowed without costs. 14.. The order is read and delivered in open court. Direction has been given to the Revenue to return the documents forthwith. The learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that a cut-off date must be fixed for returning the documents so that the revenue may not take advantage of the order passed by this Tribunal without fixing any date of return of the documents. The learned State Representative is present and he submits that the revenue may be given sufficient date for returning the documents. Considered the submissions of both sides. Let the documents to be returned within March 5, 2002 positively. The original order is modified in this way which do form the part of the original order. Application allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1290
... ...
... ... ..... use in the two Industrial Policy Resolutions. When the expression used clearly, takes in all types of flour mills, whether big or small, whether modern or traditional, it will not be possible or proper for a court to travel outside the clear meaning and to hold that a roller flour mill would not come within the expression flour mills and would be eligible for the benefits conferred by the concerned Industrial Policy Resolutions. 9.. Since we are satisfied that the stand adopted by the District Industries Centre is justified, the refusal to issue the eligibility certificate sought for by the petitioners cannot be interfered with. Nor can the petitioners be given a declaration that they are eligible for benefits under the Industrial Policy Resolutions, 1989 and 1996. In view of the above, the writ petitions have only to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss these writ petitions. We direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. A.S. NAIDU, J.-I agree. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1289
... ...
... ... ..... there is no evasion of entry tax and exemption is given only to subsequent dealers. This also prevents a fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax and to facilitate administrative efficiency because filing of a particular form ET-IX by all the dealers will not lead to uncertainty or unnecessary harassment. If this provision is held to be directory then dealer will be free to provide different modes of proof which may or may not be accepted by the assessing authority giving rise to numerous litigation. It will also affect the administrative efficiency. 19. Thus, the requirement of declaration form ET-IX is held to be mandatory and not directory as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 20.. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order on other grounds before the appellate authority, if so advised. R.S. GARG, J.-I agree. Writ application dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1288
... ...
... ... ..... ignated authority to let the petitioner know the order by serving a copy of the order of rejection. The order contained a direction to that effect concerning intimation by registered post. But the office of respondent No. 3 sent that intimation of rejection but not the copy of the order. However, that is a subsequent eventa lacuna of course-which was subsequently made good but that by no means can be a ground for challenging the legality of the rejection order passed. We find that the order dated May 30, 2000 of respondent No. 3 is valid and lawful and that no illegality has been committed by not intimating the petitioner before passing such an order. 8.. In the result, we hold that both the orders of October 24, 1997 and May 30, 2000 suffer from no illegality and that as such the applicant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for. The application is thus dismissed without any order as to costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member).-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1287
... ...
... ... ..... he record, we hold that the appeal has been filed in time, which entitles the petitioner to take advantage of the scheme provided under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001. 8.. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits provided under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001 and the respondents are not justified in denying the benefits of the scheme to the petitioner solely on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not registered as on March 31, 2001. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the petitioner has made out a case before us requiring our interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we set aside the order dated October 31, 2001 of the first respondent and consequently direct the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefits in terms of the scheme provided under Ordinance No. 3 of 2001. 9.. The writ petition is accordingly ordered. No costs. Petition ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1286
Levy of excise duty on the beer brewed by the respondent
Held that:- The excise authorities can levy excise duty only on the beer after it has been manufactured: the levy has to be on the quantity manufactured. How this quantity is to be arrived at has to be determined according to Section 32 read with Rule 35. We may, however, note that before the Excise Commissioner no dispute appears to have been raised with regard to the figures and the contention was that the percentage of wastage should have been more than 7 or 10 per cent. Mr. Divan, however, submits that this contention which was upheld by the High Court was raised subsequently. While in the body of the writ petition, it is stated that Rule 35 is violative of the Act, no specific prayer was made in the writ petition, but in the manner in which we have interpreted Rule 35 it appears to us that it is only an enabling provision which will help the excise authorities in calculating what would be the quantity of beer manufactured and fit for human consumption on which excise duty could be imposed. The said Rule is neither invalid nor does it require to be read down.
Allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court, but remand the case to the Financial Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1285
... ...
... ... ..... t any inquiry should have commenced with the issuance of notice or otherwise before Section 133(6) could have been invoked. It is with the view to collect information that power is given under Section 133(6) to issue notice, inter alia, requiring banking company to furnish information in respect of such points or matters as may be useful or relevant. The second proviso makes it clear that such information can be sought for even when no proceeding under the Act is pending, the only safeguard being that before this power can be invoked the approval of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be, has to be obtained. In the instant case, the notice dated 7th July, 2000 indicates that it was at the instance of the Director of Income-Tax (Investigation) that the information was sought for. We agree with the construction of the Section as placed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. These Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... t there was an inadvertent mistake while calculating the tax due and taking resource to the provision under Section 55 as the most appropriate remedy in such a matter. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained and is required to be modified. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not pursue the matter so far as production of C Form is concerned and has submitted that the matter may be finalised by calculating tax at 13.8 percent as drawn by the Assessing Authority. In view of such submission, it is directed that the tax payable was Rs.24,375/- and since a sum of Rs.10,124/- had admittedly been paid, the petitioner was liable to pay the bala nce amount of Rs.14,251/- towards tax. The penalty may be accordingly recalculated by the Assessing Authority as per the provisions under Section 12 (3) (b) of the TNGST Act read with Section 9 (2) (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The W.P. is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1283
Retirement of respondent, who has worked for 240 days, from the service without paying him any retrenchment compensation - Held that:- No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. However, Mr. Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months from today.
........
|
