|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 559 Records
-
2003 (11) TMI 590
... ...
... ... ..... r, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (11) TMI 589
Whether the death sentence imposed on one Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Dhana (hereinafter referred to as ’the accused’) by the Sessions Court, Alipur, West Bengal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court and this Court, needs to be converted to a life sentence because there has been no execution of the death sentence for a long time?
-
2003 (11) TMI 588
Whether the right to determine the body which shall administer the funds or property of the dissolved society which they had under the pre-existing law is a right to 'acquire, hold and dispose of property' within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f), and if so whether the legislation is not saved by Article 19(5)?
-
2003 (11) TMI 587
Whether right by adverse possession can be acquired by a non-aboriginal on the property belonging to a member of an aboriginal tribe?
-
2003 (11) TMI 586
Role of the States Government in the matter of identification of locations of proposed medical and dental colleges
Whether proper infrastructure of starting a medical college as per the Regulations are available or not?
-
2003 (11) TMI 585
Applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'
Whether the duties and functions of two categories of employment are at par, and, thus, parity in pay-scales is not permissible?
-
2003 (11) TMI 584
Whether the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case registered by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior?
Whether the Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of the Code, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved?
-
2003 (11) TMI 583
Whether licensees are required to carry on the business in liquor would mean the liquor free from all types of adulteration?
Held that:- No citizen has got any fundamental right for the trade in liquor and it is for the Government to evolve the excise policy and implement the same in the interest of the public and safeguard the public may not have much relevance in the fact situation obtaining herein and more so when the said question is pending consideration before the Constitution Bench.
-
2003 (11) TMI 582
... ...
... ... ..... or any order to the party affected. Seizure can only be made on detection of evidence of attempt to evade payment of tax payable. So the seizure must be made on objective consideration. In this case the materials furnished being only that provisions of section 68 have been violated without mentioning the factual reasons therefor, the impugned seizure cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside and so the order of penalty also cannot be sustained and the amount realised by way of penalty is required to be refunded to the petitioner. So both the points are disposed of in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The application thus succeeds. The seizure dated December 21, 2001 and the order dated December 21, 2001 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,60,250 are bad in law and hence set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the amount collected as penalty to the petitioner within a period of one month from this date. S.S. CHATTOPADHYAY (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2003 (11) TMI 581
... ...
... ... ..... tax under the 1954 Act is justified. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the Act of 1954 was not applicable at the relevant point of time on crockery made of stoneware, nor that the rate should be 7 per cent and not 15 per cent. The order of the appellate authority and the order of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes and Appellate Revisional Board are, therefore, upheld. However, the Board itself had held that on the question of fact about allowing 30 days 39 time for issuing the demand notice, the petitioner has been denied adequate opportunity. He is, therefore, entitled to a fresh demand notice if he so desires, from the assessing officer as already conceded by the Board in its order dated March 31, 2001. The matter may, therefore, be referred back to the C.T.O. concerned for necessary action. A copy of this order may also be sent to the Registrar of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board for compliance. B.K. LALA (Judicial Member). - I agree.
-
2003 (11) TMI 580
... ...
... ... ..... -deposit. Having examined the matter in its totality specially the allegations made repeatedly in the writ petition that the business activities of the petitioner had ceased as far back as in 1994, we consider it just and appropriate to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to make pre-deposit in terms of the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, by extending the time-limit to a further period of three months from today. In case, the petitioner deposits the amount within the time afforded to it hereinabove, the order passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) March 28, 2001 will be deemed to have been set aside, whereafter, the appellate authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereupon dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law. If, however, the petitioner fails to make the deposit, as noticed above, the appellate order dated March 28, 2001 shall stand affirmed. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
2003 (11) TMI 579
... ...
... ... ..... ips that the machinery was registered under the Act. In the present case both the requirements are not fulfilled. The pavar can be used for making a road and not on the road. In fact, it has to be carried on a lorry from one place to another where the road has to be made or laid. It has not been registered till today. No such order has been passed. Thus, it is clear that the goods imported by the respondent would fall within entry 21 - other machinery . It was exempted from the levy of tax vide notification dated June 3, 1998, which was given retrospective effect from May 10, 1998. Thus, the goods as imported by the respondent were exempted from the levy of entry tax on the date of import as well as the levy of tax. 13.. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find that there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 225 of 2001 in W.A. No. 103 of 2001(A) dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (11) TMI 578
... ...
... ... ..... fied and illegal, in as much as, in such a case a dealer had no scope to get way-bill for transporting the goods outside West Bengal using it as a corridor. 12.. We, therefore, hold that the goods seized on the ground of non-production of way-bill is illegal and the seizure is liable to be set aside. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to get the goods released from the custody of the respondent. 13.. The impugned order of seizure dated February 3, 1999 is therefore, set aside. The amount of penalty imposed by the learned C.T.O. is accordingly set aside. The revisional orders passed being not sustainable under law are also set aside. The goods are hereby released from the security furnished by the petitioner. The demand notice issued for recovery of the penalty is quashed. The bank guarantee for Rs. 5,95,800 issued by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Calcutta-1 is hereby released. 14.. The application is thus disposed of without costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (11) TMI 577
... ...
... ... ..... refore the Tribunal having upheld that the product manufactured by the petitioner would fall within the exempted category, for the same reason, the exemption granted under the CST Act will also be operative. The only reason stated by the Tribunal for disallowing the claim under the CST Act is non-production of the relevant declaration before the Tribunal. 14.. I am inclined to hold that the said reason cannot be sustained considering that there is no question of producing any C form certificate with reference to a product which is totally exempt from the liability of tax. Therefore, I am unable to sustain the reason stated by the Tribunal for disallowing the prayer for exemption of tax under the CST Act. Having held that the product falls under the exempted category, the requirement of production of C form does not arise for consideration. 15.. With the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (11) TMI 576
... ...
... ... ..... the goods, which was detained by the S.T.O, Mobile Squad, Fatehpur. It is alleged that no misuse was ever done by the petitioner. 19.. We are of the opinion that since these facts have been disclosed for the first time in the counter-affidavit by the respondent which are neither mentioned in the original eligibility certificate nor in the order rejecting the review application, hence they cannot be looked into. 20.. In view of the above, the order dated May 10, 1994 rejecting the review application is set aside and the petitioner is held to be entitled for the eligibility certificate for the entire period of five years from March 30, 1990. 21.. If any evasion of tax has been done by the petitioner, as alleged in the counter-affidavit (though denied by the petitioner) that can be taken care of in the regular assessment proceedings as held by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Saberina Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1996 UPTC 341. Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (11) TMI 575
... ...
... ... ..... nic Research and Development Centre, especially when the revision petitioner was not a dealer in these items? We notice that during the year 1987-88 assessee-company had sold furniture, fixtures, office equipment, canteen wooden machinery and equipment and assets for research purpose amounting to Rs. 6,58,268 to KSEDC. Assessing authority levied tax on these items at the rate applicable to the said commodities. Contention was raised by the assessee that these transactions are not sales. It was contended that even if the transactions are treated as sales since these items are purchased from within the State petitioner is not liable to pay tax on the sale of those items. We notice with regard to the said issue assessee could not produce any evidence. Under such circumstances the claim was negatived. We find no reason to interfere with the same. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue. All the revision cases are disposed of as above. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (11) TMI 574
... ...
... ... ..... s put to by the customers who use it. 6.. Thus, the question as to whether the inclusion of coconut oil under entry No. 245 is valid or not has to be judged with reference to its user by the customers in the State of Bihar. 7.. The said question cannot be decided as an abstract proposition of law. It requires verification of factual matters and the State has to produce the material to discharge the onus which lie on it. We, in writ jurisdiction, cannot take evidence and decide the question of user. There is remedy available under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 where the authorities can go into the factual aspect of the matter as well as the legal aspect. 8.. Accordingly, we are of the view that let the matter be first decided at the appropriate stage by the authority in terms of the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, this Court, if the situation arises, may decide the question. 9.. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.
-
2003 (11) TMI 573
... ...
... ... ..... Government. If really the defendant has paid the said amount to the State Government nothing prevented the defendant from producing the receipt for having paid the same. From the evidence it is seen that though the defendant in its written statement has pleaded that whatever tax collected from the plaintiff has been paid to the State Government has not produced the same. Therefore, I hold that the defendant has not paid the tax collected to the State Government. Further, in the absence of any proof by the defendant for having paid the amount to the State Government the defendant bank shall not be allowed to enrich itself unjustly, when it has admitted the collection of the tax from the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed. In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. Parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.
-
2003 (11) TMI 572
... ...
... ... ..... 47,585. 3.. We earnestly feel that there has been flagrant violation of audi alteram partem rule, and in a matter like this, an opportunity has to be given. In the circumstances, this writ appeal is allowed setting aside the assessment orders passed pursuant to the revised notice dated November 13, 2002 and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for making an enquiry after affording opportunity to the appellant, and then pass orders afresh. To avoid further delay, we direct the learned Special Government Pleader to issue a copy of the said revised notice to the learned counsel for the appellant, who is present in the court and as such notice to the appellant in person is dispensed with. The appellant is given time of 15 days from today to file his explanation, upon which the enquiry, which is directed to be held as mentioned supra, shall be conducted by the first respondent and then proceed according to law. No costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P. is closed. Appeal allowed.
-
2003 (11) TMI 571
... ...
... ... ..... suppression so as to warrant levy under section 16(2) of the Act. For levying penalty under section 16(2), the element of wilful non-disclosure is essential, which is absent in these cases. Therefore, in all the cases, the levy of penalty is deleted. 13.. In the result, the order impugned in O.P. No. 692 of 2003 is set aside in full and the Original Petition in O.P. No. 692 of 2003 (for the year 1998-99) is allowed. The orders impugned in O.P. Nos. 693 and 694 of 2003 relating to levy of penalty alone, are set aside and the Original Petitions in O.P. Nos. 693 and 694 of 2003 (for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001) are dismissed in respect of tax portion. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions therein do 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 10th day of November, 2003. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
........
|
