|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 578 Records
-
2003 (1) TMI 703 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 702 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 701 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that since the insurer has a remedy by filling an appeal before the High Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and for that reason, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it would be open to the insurer to file an appeal if it is permissible under the law.
-
2003 (1) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld have to be classified under Chapter Heading No. 73.18. Having regard to the finding that the goods in question cannot but be regarded as parts of automobiles, it has to be held that they are suitable for use primarily with articles of Chapter Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05. It follows that the goods in question cannot be treated as falling under Chapter Heading No. 73.18 and that they can properly be classified under Chapter Heading No. 87.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 27. In this view of the matter, the judgments and orders of the Tribunal under challenge in the first set of appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 4598-4612 of 1994) are set aside and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal under challenge in the second set of appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 5701-5705 of 2001) and the order impugned in the third appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5711 of 1999) are confirmed and accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed with costs.
-
2003 (1) TMI 699 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 698 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... xpression ‘extinguishment of any rights therein’ will have to be confined to the extinguishment of rights on account of transfer and cannot be extended to mean any extinguishment of rights independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. 17. The act of purchase of Indira Vikas Patra tantamounts to the depositing of the money in the Post Office for a specific period on a specified rate of interest. On the maturity of the amount when the assessee gets his money back, he is not getting the amount for transferring any asset. He is only getting his money, which Post Office promised to pay back after a specified period. As such, there is no transfer. Resultantly, there is no capital gain. Ex Consequenti, it is not open to the assessee to avail the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition as contemplated under Explanation (iii) to section 48. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. In favour of revenue
-
2003 (1) TMI 697 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o denied to him by reason of the Repealing Act. If the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it would lead to incongruity and would baffle all logic. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant had not presented his case or claimed compensation for loss of future employment but has claimed only the loss for the present tenure and, therefore, we should not grant any relief to him. A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. May be in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same. In the result, the appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the High Court stands partly modified in terms of the aforesaid directions. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (1) TMI 696 - CESTAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, after going through the various evidences which must have been produced by the industry in which they have said that by blending/mixing of different grades of virgin HDPE raw materials, it is possible to produce HDPE material for pipe purpose as per DOT specifications. It was, in this background, the clarification was given by the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Lucknow and this clarification has got relevance for deciding the issue. Further, the appellants have submitted extract of RG-23A Register along with their Monthly RT-12 Returns, therefore the demand is hit by limitation and is time barred. Moreover, all the transactions were genuine and not fictitious and MODVAT Credit has been taken on the quantity of inputs purchased by them and received in the factory. We, therefore, allow the appeals with consequential reliefs, if any, by setting aside the impugned Order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (1) TMI 695 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions in the Act and the Rules which made it clear, as emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as in my judgment in M/s. Bharat Iron Stores, that the selling dealer is expected to act only as a careful businessman and the Act does not place on the selling dealer the burden of making all sorts of verification. If there is nothing in Form-III-A raising a doubt about its genuineness or the genuineness of the purchasing dealer of the fact that the purchasing dealer is a registered dealer. The selling dealer having acted on such a Form 1II-A cannot be burdened with any liability if later on it is found that the purchasing dealer was non-existent or its registration certificate had alredy been cancelled." 10. In the case of Mi. Indra Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1995 U.P.T.C 4, similar view has been taken by this Court. 11. For the reasons above, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 694 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is directly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Silver & Arts Palace Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001, dated 18-12-2002 wherein their Lordships have taken a view that any sale of an article on counter-shop, emporium or other establishment situated in India against foreign currency and if ultimately that article has been taken out of India, the assessee is entitled to the special deduction under section 80HHC. 3. Following the view taken by the Apex Court, we answer the reference in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. The reference application stands disposed of.
-
2003 (1) TMI 693 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bed, it was held that Section 5 of the Act was applicable and, therefore, the said decision is of no help to the respondent. Similarly in Shantilal M. Bhayani vs. Shanti Bai (1995) Supp.(4) SCC 578 , this Court was concerned with the question as to whether the provision of Section 5 of the Act would be applicable to an appeal filed before the appellate authority functioning under the T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The question which arose for consideration therein was whether the appellate authority was a court or a persona designata. Having regard to the provisions of contained in sub-section (2) of Section 29, it was held that the Limitation Act,1963 applies. Such is not the case here and, therefore, the said decision is distinguishable. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under challenge. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (1) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT
Whether an opportunity was to be provided by the disciplinary authority in case the disciplinary authority disagreed with certain findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer?
Held that:- In para 19 of the judgment in Punjab National Bank case [1998 (8) TMI 594 - Supreme Court of India] when it in clearly stated that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2) (Rule 50(3)(ii) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, is identical in terms applicable to the present case) and the delinquent officer will have to be given an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, we find it difficult to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to the respondent, the order of dismissal could not be set aside by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 691 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... we are of the view that the Tribunal’s order calls for no interference. The Appeals are dismissed.”
-
2003 (1) TMI 690 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in annexure A III order in M.F.A. No. 142 of 2002. This disposes of M.F.A. No. 142 of 2002 and the main contention in the writ appeals also. However, as already noted, there is one more contention in the writ appeals with regard to the notices issued under section 43 of the Act. We have declared the scope of the clause regarding retrospective application of the notification occurring in the last paragraph of the notification. We do not propose to deal with the notices issued under section 43 of the Act or regarding the assessment, which is the subject-matter of W.A. No. 118 of 2003. All these questions are relegated to the statutory authorities for disposal in the light of the decision taken on the scope and content of the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in annexure A III order. All these appeals are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 725 of 2002 in M.F.A. No. 142 of 2002 dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 689 - SUPREME COURT
Whether what was received by the chemical analyser was what had actually been seized?
Held that:- In the present case, it has been proved by evidence that what was seized was properly sealed and stored and that the same was sent to the chemical analyser in a sealed condition.
Thus as prosecution has been careful enough to prove that the same sample was sent to the chemical analyser with the seal intact. It is thus established by evidence that the sample which was extracted was what was sent to the chemical analyser. We are thus unable to uphold the reasoning of the High Court. Appeal allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 688 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der section 17(3) of the KGST Act. In the light of the fact that the appellant was not given an opportunity and served with an order, which are mandatory requirement contemplated under rule 18A(2) of the KGST Rules, we are of the opinion that the appellant was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before finalisation of the assessment under section 17(3). We, therefore, set aside the assessments and remand the case back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal according to law. We do not find any illegality in the direction issued by the Tribunal. However, we make it clear that the assessing authority is free to consider the matter in the light of the provisions of section 17(4) and rule 18A of the Rules, while passing fresh orders pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. It is also open to the assessee to file a statement as contemplated under rule 18A(1A) of the Rules, on receipt of notice from the assessing authority. The T.R.C. is disposed of as above.
-
2003 (1) TMI 687 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rder of Tribunal and the authorities below. There is no dispute that during the year under consideration in which form III-B was issued for making purchases of raw material, dealer was holding valid recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act. The proceeding under section 3-B can only be taken when dealer issues false or wrong certificate or declaration. Since dealer was holding valid recognition certificate during the year under consideration and form III-B was issued by the assessing authority, such form III-B cannot be said to be false or wrong, therefore, the proceedings under section 3-B could not be taken. Assessing authority was of the view that the dealer was not manufacturing the notified goods and for this it was open to him to amend the recognition certificate. Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed under section 3-B. I see no error in the order of the Tribunal. 4.. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 686 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e 214C or rule 214B of the Rules. The lack of the requirement of the verification regarding valuation in rule 214C or 214B and its necessity in any other rule like rule 212(9) of the Rules makes the intention of the Legislature very clear. We agree with the decision already taken by this Tribunal in the cases on this point as submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner. We, therefore, hold that the seizure cannot but be bad since the Commercial Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) went beyond is jurisdiction in this case. 8.. Accordingly we hold that the application should be and the same is allowed. It is ordered that the seizure of ready-made garments made on September 7, 2001 in respect of 250 cartons by respondent No. 1 is illegal and the same as such is quashed. The seized goods if already released on furnishing security, the security so furnished be released forthwith. Parties do bear their respective costs. 9.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 685 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is is largely a finding of fact based on appreciation of the available materials in the case and there is no error of law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 6.. In the present case the discussion of the matter by the Tribunal in the portion extracted above would show that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant matters and has arrived at a finding of fact that there are no grounds to estimate the taxable turnover in any manner whatsoever. According to us, the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal in the appellate order are based on materials available on record. We do not find any illegality in the said order. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for us to consider the decision in Mary Antonys case 2000 120 STC 224 (Ker) FB (2000) 8 KTR 545 (Ker) FB mentioned supra reversing the decision in Lovely Thomas case 1999 113 STC 505 mentioned above relied on by the assessee. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 684 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of the firm dealing with the assessment case. 4.. In my opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is pedantic. Normally, appeal should be heard after hearing both the parties. If on account of some reason, assessee could not appear on the date fixed and reasons have been explained in the application, it is always in the interest of justice to provide opportunity of hearing and recall ex parte orders. 5.. In my opinion, Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the restoration applications. On the facts and circumstances, restoration applications are allowed. 6.. For the reasons above, revisions are allowed. Restoration application No. 8 of 1990 in appeal No. 16 of 1987 and Restoration application No. 9 of 1990 in appeal No. 16 of 1987 are allowed. The ex parte orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals are set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving proper opportunities of hearing to the parties expeditiously. Petitions allowed.
........
|
