|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 806 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Siemens Ltd. v. State of Kerala 2001 122 STC 1 had remanded back to the assessing authority the case of the same assessee for another year. 10.. Taking into account the above facts, we are of the view that the assessing authority should consider the matter again after hearing the parties. T.R.Cs. are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 6802 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 548 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6805 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 549 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6808 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 550 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6811 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 551 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6813 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 552 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6815 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 553 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6817 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 554 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C. M.P. No. 6819 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 555 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 6821 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 556 of 2001 dismissed. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 805 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lcutta supplier for the inter-State purchase made by the assessee. Therefore, a subsequent sale on the very same transaction is assessable in Kerala by virtue of proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessment was accordingly made by the officer strictly in compliance with statutory provisions. We are unable to agree with the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary which is based on a totally wrong assumption of facts that the sale was a local sale by the assessee in Tamil Nadu. In this case since the claim made was one under section 6(2) which was disallowed, there is no scope for assessment at concessional rate because if C form was available from Tata Tea Ltd., to the assessee, then of course it would have been a case of exemption under section 6(2) and not a case of concessional rate. The tax revision case is therefore allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal and restoring the assessment order confirmed in first appeal. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 804 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der entry 54 of the State List. Thus, after 46th Amendment the department is not required to prove that the sale of material involved in the execution of works contract has taken place. Once it is proved that goods are supplied or delivered in the execution of the works contract it shall be presumed unless otherwise provided that the transfer of property in such goods has taken place. Once such goods are chargeable to tax, tax shall be levied as it is done in the case of sale of such goods. Thus, the Tribunal was right in holding that the iron strips and hooks used for fastening the cotton bales, which were supplied by the assessee-firm in the course of its job-works, are chargeable to tax for the reason that the property in the items passed from the assessee-firm to the awarder of the contract in the course of job-work. 15.. In view of the aforesaid discussion we find no merit in both the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed, cost easy. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 803 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act , the sales having been made by unregistered dealers, the selling dealer, i.e., dealer G at Meerut was liable to tax and not the opposite party-dealer. In view of this legal position, the liability of tax was clearly on the selling dealer, i.e., dealer G at Meerut. The assessing authority, in this case, had examined this aspect of the matter but wrongly concluded that the opposite party-dealer would be liable to tax under section 3-D(1) of the Act ignoring the provisions of section 3-D(2) of the Act . It is submitted that for this reason also, the assessment order for U.P., was unsustainable even if it is accepted for the sake of argument only, though strongly denied, that delivery of the goods was taken by the opposite partydealer from dealer G at Meerut in U.P. 28.. In view of the above observation in the present facts and circumstances the question of law raised in these revisions are dealt with and both the revisions are dismissed accordingly. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 802 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ract is in two parts, one for retreading the tyres, which is inextricably connected with the other part of the contract, i.e., movement of the tyres from the State of Tamil Nadu to Kerala, being integral part of the contract, it has to be considered as inter-State works contract, which is totally exempted under clause (2)(a) of section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 18.. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the statutory authorities as well as the Special Tribunal have committed error in bisecting the contract and coming to the conclusion that the goods passed on in Tamil Nadu and as such the value of the goods are taxable under section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as works contract within the State of Tamil Nadu. 19.. Hence, the orders of the statutory authorities culminating with the judgment of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 801 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the authority for the intervening period between the date of submission of return and the date of assessment. I am further led to hold that in adopting the best judgment assessment procedure, the assessing authority must issue notice upon the dealer narrating the materials or other evidence proposed to be used against him in arriving at the best judgment assessment , but unfortunately in the present case, the petitioner-dealer has not been afforded the said opportunity. 13.. Under the aforesaid discussed legal aspects of the matter, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned assessment orders and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders followed by the demand notice, etc., are hereby quashed. However, it is kept open for the assessing authority to reassess the matter after allowing the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard in the manner indicated above. 14.. All the three writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 800 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... receipts, as the case may be, in business, or of the gross receipts in profession, in such previous year or years or a sum of one hundred thousand rupees, whichever is less. 17.. Dr. Saraf has further submitted that in absence of any similar or identical provisions under the Act, the authorities are unable to take any action against the dealers who refuse or fail to submit the returns as the assessing authority is bound to make assessment with or without the audit report and in that sense the provisions of section 10A of the Act have become optional, that is, at the discretion of the dealers. The respondent-authority must examine this aspect of the matter and take necessary action. However, the question before this Court is whether in absence of any penal provision, the section 10A and rule 19A can be quashed. In our opinion, the impugned provision cannot be thrown out on that count. 18.. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed as stated above. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT
Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to " not filing an application" within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act?
Held that:- When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28-A cannot be denied. We, accordingly answer question No. l(a) by holding that the dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay would tantamount to not filing an application within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So far as question l(b) is concerned, this is really the same question, as in question l(a) and, therefore, we reiterate that when an application of a land owner under Section 18 is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said land owner is entitled to make an application under Section 28-A, if other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.
The receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collectors with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner’s application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the Legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner.
-
2002 (9) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 6, 23(2) and 28 thereof stand incorporated in the three State Acts with which we are concerned in these matters or whether the Land Acquisition Act has been merely referred to in the State Acts?
Held that:- In the appeals and special leave petitions before us relating to acquisitions under the Punjab Act, the High Court has granted to the claimants the benefit of additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. We find from the record placed before us that the Awards of the Collector in all these cases were made much before 30th April, 1982 and, therefore, there was no proceeding for acquisition of land pending on 30th April, 1982 since the Collector had made his Awards much earlier. Such being the factual position, the claimants will not be entitled to the benefit of additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and the judgments and orders of the High Court on this aspect of the matter must be set aside.
In these cases as well the Collector had made his Award much before 30th April, 1982 and, therefore, the appellant's claim for additional amount under Section 23(1-A) must be rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 797 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the certificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 could not have efficaciously decided such dispute?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned orders. The High Court by a detailed and considered order dated October 11, 1991, quashed the F.I.R. accepting the petitions filed by some of the respondents herein. It appears the said order was not challenged any further. Possibly, having regard to this situation and at this length of time the authorities did not pursue the matter any further as to holding of further enquiry or taking action pursuant to the report of the Vigilance Director General against the respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000. A submission was also made on behalf of some respondents particularly respondents 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 that even no prima facie case was made out against them in the enquiry.
-
2002 (9) TMI 796 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e Appellant rsquo s action and the direction issued to consider the same as a measure to prevent the Appellant indulging in such action in future or remedying the mischief arisen as a result of the Appellants action. A remedial action is normally seen as one intended to correct, remove or lessen a wrong, fault or defect. The impugned direction is found extraneous to the charge established against the Appellant. In my view the direction tantamounts to imposition of penalty which section 11B does not provide for, as explained in Sterlite (Supra). In this view of the matter I am of the view that the direction has no legal backing and therefore cannot sustain. Therefore the Respondent rsquo s direction prohibiting the Appellant from accessing the capital market and dealing in securities market is set aside. But it is made clear, that this order does not in anyway inhibit the Respondent taking any action against the Appellant in accordance with law. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 795 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Method of accounting ... ... ... ... ..... n other words, he estimated the wastage without any basis. 4.1 Before us, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the subsequent years i.e., assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93, the wastage claimed by the assessee were 2.01 , 1.89 and 1.74 respectively and the same were accepted while framing the assessments under section 143(3) of the Act. The above contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the learned D.R. From the above facts, it would be clear that the wastage on higher side in the subsequent years has been accepted by the Department. So, there was no justification on the part of the Assessing Officer in not believing the contention of the assessee that the wastage shown 1.44 was reasonable. In our view, the CIT(A) was fully justified in stating that the provisions of section 145(1) were not applicable to the facts of the present case. We accordingly uphold her order. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 794 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Block assessment in search cases, Undisclosed investments ... ... ... ... ..... she paid to the previous owner and the same was found during the course of search, as such the Assessing Officer was not justified in enhancing the value on the basis of valuation determined by the D.V.O. As regards to the remaining addition of Rs. 11,38,990, the learned CIT(A) was justified in restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions as the Assessing Officer made the addition without appreciating the facts available on the record but merely on the basis of the valuation determined by the D.V.O. Considering the totality of the facts in the present case as discussed above, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) and as such we have no hesitation in rejecting the ground raised by the Department. We accordingly, find no merit in the ground No. 3 raised by the department. 5. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are general in nature so do not require any comments on our part. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 793 - ITAT MUMBAI
Interest on borrowed capital, Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ncludible in the total turnover for deduction under section 80HHC. This issue is squarely covered with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kantilal Chhotalal 2000 246 ITR 439 wherein the Hon rsquo ble Court has laid down that the reading of clauses (b) and (ba) of the Explanation to section 80HHC clearly indicates that the Legislature has brought on par the components of export turnover and sale turnover. Both the numerator and denominator show that they refer to sale proceeds. Any receipt which does not form part of sale proceeds cannot come within the ambit of the above ratio. In view of the above decision, the Assessing Officer directed to exclude both the freight and insurance charges from the export turnover and total turnover, as these items are not having any nexus either with the export sales or with the total sales. The Assessing Officer would, accordingly, recompute the deduction under section 80HHC. 9. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 792 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... with user of the brand name. Therefore, according to the respondent the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not liable to be interfered with. 4. emsp We have examined the product packing which is produced before us. It is seen that the brand name of the product has been given as Triben, Triben-B and Triben Plus. It is true that the logo of Jenburkt is also printed on the cartons, but it is also printed that the product is marketed by Jenburkt. The manner in which the above printing is made on the cartons would not in any way show that the product is being identified under the brand name of Jenburkt. There is no evidence adduced by the Revenue that the marketing agency Jenburkt is also producing the same combination or any other product in the brand name of the assessee. We are of the view that the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court is directly applicable in the present case. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 791 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Excisability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... various parts after fabrication were placed in their proper position and then joined together to gave them the shape of trusses and girders. We find that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering and Indus. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 held that the goods shall be marketable and capable of being marketed as such. In view of the above decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, the issue in respect of marketability or excisability of steel structures such as trussers and girders requires re-consideration by the adjudicating authority afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing of the appellants. Hence, the impugned order in respect of steel structures like trussers and girders is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority will also decide the quantum of penalty afresh after deciding the above mentioned issue. Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2002 (9) TMI 790 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearance - Clubbing of ... ... ... ... ..... made by the supplier of the raw material or semi-finished goods. 12. emsp Apart from the above, in the facts of the case Notification Nos. 83/94 and 84/94 cannot have application at all as the supplier, namely, V.S. Polypack is not having a factory where the goods received from the job worker are further used in or in relation to manufacture of specified goods. As mentioned earlier, it is the case of the appellant that it was due to a mistake M/s. V.S. Polypack utilised the challans prescribed under Notification Nos. 83/94 and 84/94. The appellant has further contended that no undertaking as contemplated under the above notifications had been given by V.S. Polypack. 13. emsp In the light of the above, we hold that there is no justification for clubbing the value of clearances of excisable goods which were got manufactured on job work basis by V.S. Polypack with the value of clearances effected by the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 789 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of foreign currency ... ... ... ... ..... rom whom the currency was seized at the point of export had made confessional statement to the effect that the foreign exchange was acquired in India. Later, however, evidence of lawful acquisition of the currency while he was abroad was produced. The Tribunal accorded relief relying upon such documentary evidence. Order No. CI/1923-26/WZB/2002, dated 16-7-2002. 2002 (146) E.L.T. 180 (Tribunal) . 5. emsp The ratio of the judgment would apply to these two appeals. We also observe that foreign exchange in the present circumstances not being prohibited goods, the order of absolute confiscation do not sustain. In modification of these orders, we permit Mrs. Kamara Jaid Mohammed to redeem foreign exchange, of 15,000/- US on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/-. We also permit Mrs. Naseem M. Mohammed to redeem the foreign exchange of US 13,000/- on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The penalties imposed upon both appellants are remitted fully. 6. emsp The appeals are thus partly allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 788 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... iew the principles of natural justice and fair play. Leaving apart all this from the order dated July 26, 2002,1 find that some other person interest to purchase these assets of the company (in liquidation) filed D.B. Special Appeal (company) and which is pending. Where the applicant is really and fairly interested to purchase the assets of the company (in liquidation) may approach to the Division Bench in the appeal where the matter is sub judice. After confirmation of sale and more so when the appeal is pending in the Division Bench and the highest bidder is not impleaded as a party to this application, the relief as prayed for therein cannot be granted. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this application is dismissed. However, dismissal of this application will not come in the way of the applicant where it desires either to file an appropriate application before the Division Bench in the appeal or fresh application after impleading the highest bidder a party thereto.
-
2002 (9) TMI 787 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability of - Show cause notice stage - Tea - Excisability - Words and phrases - Interpretation of Statute
............
|
