|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 578 Records
-
2003 (1) TMI 683 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uring the relevant period and that the sales turnover returned by the assessee relates to the sales effected only for the 134 days during the year 1993-94. The Tribunal had also not considered the fact that in the assessment for the year 1994-95 the taxable turnover of the assessee was fixed at Rs. 8,19,060 as noted by the first appellate authority. According to us, the Tribunal was not justified in brushing aside the various reasons stated by the assessing authority for rejecting the accounts and for estimating the turnover and in directing the acceptance of the accounts. The direction is clearly against the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. In the above circumstances, we set aside the common order of the Tribunal for the two assessment years under revision and direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment. These two tax revision cases are allowed as above. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 682 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings under the Act. The petitioner is undoubtedly aggrieved as he has come up to this Court challenging the one taken and seeking for a rule under article 226 of the Constitution. It is he who should file a suit to get redress or the appropriate relief. What the relief he can obtain, it is not for this Court to surmise or to predicate. 12.. When we apply the said decision of the Madras High Court, it is for the petitioner as the owner of the property to approach the civil court which is being brought on sale towards the recovery of the arrears of sales tax. For these reasons, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, original petition No. 1035 of 2002 is dismissed. Consequently, the O.M.P. therein does not survive. And this tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 29th day of January, 2003. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 681 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... n Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1990 77 STC 47 (Mad.) subsequent legislation can only be looked at where the earlier Act is ambiguous. In the present case, there is no ambiguity in deriving the meaning of the term flower seeds appearing in serial No. 37 of Schedule I of the Act, 1994. We are also of the opinion that for the purpose of understanding meaning of the flower seeds for growing flower plant, it is not necessary to examine the subsequent legislation. 18.. In view of the findings made above, we hold that camellia flower seeds come within the entry No. 37, Schedule I of the Act, 1994. The application, therefore, is allowed. The order dated September 12, 2001 is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 3 is restrained from taking any steps on the basis of the said impugned order. 19.. No order as to costs. 20.. The application RN-446 of 2001 accordingly is allowed without costs for the same reason discussed above. 21.. A. Deb (Technical Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 680 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n of the learned counsel for the assessee that the rails purchased by the dealer would fall under item (xvi) of entry 2. Even assuming that the steel rails purchased by the dealer are not necessarily to be melted for the purpose of manufacturing any new item, still it falls under entry 2A, as the entry, which reads as iron and steel scrap, includes every type of scrap, whether meltable or otherwise. Even the Appellate Deputy Commissioner granted the relief to the dealer not on the ground that the disputed goods falls under entry 2(xvi), but on the ground that the dealer is entitled for set-off in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 575, which is not at all relevant. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the contention of the assessee-dealer and there is no illegality or irregularity in the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, warranting interference of this Court. 8.. Therefore, the special appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Special appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 679 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tton, this Court feels that there are no reason which will persuade this Court to take different view than the view taken by the Tax Board. In its revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to act in a limited sphere. Thus, the order of the Tax Board is maintained. 42.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further raised question that if on the original commodity, tax has been paid once, then the traders are entitled to get set-off in terms of the law governing the field. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that this question was not raised before the original lower authority. In the facts of this case, there was hardly any scope to raise this question before the lower authority. The parties are left to raise this question before the appropriate authority, if law permits. The appropriate authority will pass appropriate orders in this regard. With the above observations, the aforementioned revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (1) TMI 678 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the above circumstances, we are of the view that the authorities and the Tribunal are justified in holding that the sales turnover of lorry effected by the assessee is liable to tax under the Act. There is no scope for interference with the orders of the Tribunal and the authorities. Though the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the benefit available under explanation to entry 94 at least must be given to the assessee we are unable to issue any such direction because at the relevant time this explanation was not available. Further the explanation is not merely clarificatory in nature. It confers a new benefit provided the circumstances specified in the explanation are satisfied. Thus the explanation has to be treated only as prospective and not retrospective. In this view of the matter we cannot grant the relief provided under the explanation to the assessee in the instant case. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 677 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ction 2(38), there is no question of charging sales tax thereon. In case, the appellant has made any misuse of the form C and has wrongly availed any concession or has taken any undue benefit or unlawful gain, which otherwise could not be available to him, it is always open for the concerned authorities to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law, but that does not mean that he could be made liable to pay sales tax on such transaction (which does not amount to sale) on the basis of which job of blasting was undertaken and completed and in the process thereof the explosives were made use of. 6.. We, therefore, find that this appeal must succeed on its own merits, the order dated November 24, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. This appeal as well as the writ petition are allowed and the impugned assessment order dated September 29, 2001 (annexure 7) is quashed and set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ appeal allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 676 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Government by providing for collection of advance sales tax in the form of entry tax at check-post. Since there is a clear distinction between the class of goods on which entry tax is payable and other goods on which no entry tax is payable, under the above two notifications, I feel the petitioner cannot have any grievance because section 12 itself provides for different treatment for different class of goods and dealers. As already stated, the impugned notification only advances the object of the Sales Tax Act by making the petitioner and similar dealers to account the goods brought to Kerala in their books of accounts to avoid evasion of sales tax in Kerala. Therefore the ultimate purpose of the notification serves this larger objective and I do not think that contention of the petitioner that the impugned notification is discriminatory, arbitrary and hence violative of article 14 of the Constitution can be sustained. Original petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 675 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ompany for realising the assessed dues of another company. The action of the respondents being wholly unauthorised is not sustainable and the respondent should be directed to return the amount recovered from the petitioner. However, this will not debar the respondents from taking any step according to law against the appropriate person for the purpose of recovery of the amount. The issues are thus decided in favour of the petitioner. The application succeeds. It is ordered that the certificate case initiated against the petitioner-company be quashed and the order dated September 4, 2001 of respondent No. 1 rejecting the prayer for dropping the certificate case is set aside. The money collected from the petitioner-company be refunded to the petitioner-company within a period of three weeks from this date. Respondents are at liberty to take fresh steps, if any, according to law, for the recovery of the aforesaid dues. 9.. A. DEB (Technical Member).I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 674 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of trees which have been severed from the land or which have been felled, also the process of lopping the branches, cutting the trunks or converting them into logs, poles or ballies or any other articles of wood, but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed. 10.. Actually, based on the aforesaid definition therefore, when we look at para 8 (para 9 in STC) we notice that their Lordships in the aforesaid judgment were referring to the expression collecting as was occurring in the aforesaid definition. It is noteworthy that the word collecting does not find any mention in the definition of the term manufacture as occurring in section 2(n) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. 11.. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that this court cannot interfere with the aforesaid impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2. 12.. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 673 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be shown to be an unequivocal promise to the other party intended to create a legal relationship and that it was acted upon as such by the party to whom the same was made. A notification issued under section 25 of the Act cannot be said to be holding out of any such unequivocal promise by the Government which was intended to created any legal relationship between the Government and the party drawing benefit flowing from the said notification. It is, therefore, futile to contend that even if the public interest so demanded and the Central Government was satisfied that the exemption did not require to be extended any further, it could still not withdraw the exemption. 19.. By applying the ratio of the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of these cases, I hold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 20.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 672 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f writ of certiorari. It is, however, directed that petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) towards cost as a precondition to set aside of the impugned orders. This amount should be deposited within a week from today. The petitioner will appear before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, on February 3, 2003 and will produce certified copy of this order. The learned Additional Commissioner, will then hear the revision on merits keeping in view the directives given by this Court on October 21, 2002 and will pass reasoned order on merits. Petitioner shall be at liberty to file documents, if necessary, in support of their contention and will not seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever. The learned Additional Commissioner, Commercial tax, Indore, shall make endeavor to decide the revision on merits within a period of three months. 6.. With these directions, petition succeeds and is allowed. Petition allowed. W.P. No. 2398 of 2001.
-
2003 (1) TMI 671 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... opinion the Divisional Level Committee erred in law in overlooking the circular dated February 25, 1988 which has been referred to in the review application copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition. In our opinion, the land and building has to be taken into account towards the determination of the capital investment in the unit and hence the petitioner was entitled to exemption for a period of five year. 22.. In the circumstances the impugned orders dated April 22, 1988 as well as January 19, 1989 annexures 6 and 8 to the writ petition are modified and a direction is issued to the Divisional Level Committee to grant exemption under section 4-A for a period of five years to the petitioner in respect of its new unit. The recovery proceedings will accordingly be stayed/modified till the grant of the modified eligibility certificate in the light of the observations and directions made in this judgment. 23.. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 670 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he contract value are certainly a class of goods, whereas the goods below the extent of 5 per cent are a different class. Hence the State Government can provide for such partial composition for only a certain class of goods and not for another class of goods. 22.. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there cannot be both composition as well as regular assessment in respect of the same assessment year. For the reasons already given above we cannot accept this submission. Section 7-D itself contemplates such a partial composition, as mentioned above. 23.. It may be mentioned that section 7-D is in the nature of a concession given to the dealer for avoiding harassment and hassle. If he is not satisfied with the composition scheme he is not obliged to accept the same. We see no illegality in the impugned clause of the composition scheme nor in the circular of the Commissioner, Trade Tax Act. 24.. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 669 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Such maximum penalty as contemplated by the provisions of section 23(ii) of the Act is attracted in a case falling under clause (b), (c), (d) or clause (g) of section 23(1). Which particular clause of section 23(1) has been applied in the present case is not disclosed in the impugned order dated November 10, 1993. The notices issued to the petitioner contemplated imposition of penalty in the event of the failure of the petitioner to file its returns which situation is covered by clause (c) of section 23(1) of the Act. In that event penalty not exceeding half of the tax assessed could have been imposed. In view of what has been discussed above, the order dated November 10, 1993 in so far as imposition of penalty is concerned is being interfered with and the matter is remanded for a fresh decision on the question of penalty after giving an opportunity to the writ petitioner. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (1) TMI 668 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd use certificate issued from the Town ad Country Planning Department, Haryana. This issue stands squarely covered by a division Bench judgment of this Court in Baldev Spinners Private Ltd., Panipat v. State of Haryana (Civil Writ Petition No. 9545 of 2001 decided on December 10, 2002 dagger ). 3.. For the reasons recorded in Baldev Spinners case dagger , these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders cancelling the eligibility certificates only on the ground of non-production of the change of land use certificate quashed with no order as to costs. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 667 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g the taxing statute. The property in the goods, i.e., the meals, snacks, etc., were transferred to BRPL. Once they are supplied against the coupon the said transaction will amount to sale as it was also for consideration. If a company, manufacturing blankets, donates certain percentage of blankets for charity or any other social cause without payment, the giving of such things may not amount to sale but if a third party purchases such goods from the manufacturer in order to give in charity, can the said third person claim that he is not liable to pay tax on such purchases or the manufacturer can claim that such sale is not exigible to tax? The dominant purpose for purchase is immaterial. 16.. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Writ petitioner is given six weeks time to make the payment against the demand of tax along with the interest as per law. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 666 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... entable was the statutory notification. The policy resolution actually was translated into the statutory notification by the issuance of S.O. No. 478. The policy resolution of 1995 thus culminated into and merged with the statutory notification being S.O. No. 478 and once the statutory notification was issued, the policy resolution paled into oblivion and got eclipsed totally. What, therefore, is enforceable in law in terms of section 84 of the Act read with section 86 is the statutory notification being S.O. No. 478 and the statutory notification providing only for the exemption with respect to such sale transactions which have intra-State connotation, with respect to inter-State sales, the exemption cannot be claimed or granted in favour of the petitioners. 5.. Based on the aforesaid observations, therefore, we have no hesitation in declining to grant any relief to the petitioners. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 665 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appearing for the respondent is unable to point out any provision either under the Central Act or under the State Act or Rules made thereunder or even under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act authorising the respondent to issue a prohibitory order prohibiting the petitioner from running the mill either by himself or by leasing out the same. It is of course true that there cannot be any alienation of assets of the Mill, since proceedings have already been started. However, there is no authority to issue any prohibitory direction in the manner as has been done in the present case. 8.. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is hereby declared that the direction dated October 16, 2002 is of no consequence and cannot be enforced by the respondent. It is however made clear that the respondent is free to take any action contemplated under law for recovery of the amount due. No costs. Consequently, W.P. M.P. No. 67524 of 2002 is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (1) TMI 664 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ence of the retention price and refinery price is in the nature of subsidy or compensation and these are not liable for taxation either under the Taxation Act or the Central Sales Tax Act. We find no merit in these appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. 9.. This court is to follow the decision as above in the given context of the case at hand. Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that special leave petition has been preferred against the judgment of the division Bench before the apex Court, but as on date there is no stay in the matter. 10.. That being the position, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the decision of the division Bench with the observation that the amount received by the petitioner/refinery from the oil pool account by way of subsidy is not exigible to sales tax. No order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
