|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 468 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 531
... ...
... ... ..... rfere with the order under challenge. The civil appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 530
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 529
Whether after introduction of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Water Act’) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Air Act’), there was implied repeal of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’)?
-
2003 (8) TMI 528
Whether the landlord-tenant relationship as proved and the appellants having incurred liability for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as alleged by the respondents?
-
2003 (8) TMI 527
Permanent preventive injunction - High Court has summarily dismissed the petition forming an opinion that the petition was not maintainable as the appellant was seeking interim injunction against private respondents - Held that:- The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where ’a stitch in time would save nine’. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge.
The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court refusing to entertain the petition filed by the appellant, holding it not maintainable, is set aside. The petition shall stand restored on the file of the High Court, to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench consistently with the rules of the High Court, depending on whether the petitioner before the High Court is seeking a writ of certiorari or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
-
2003 (8) TMI 526
... ...
... ... ..... und that the unaccounted purchase relates to firewood and jungle wood whereas the unaccounted sales relate to timber. If, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, jungle wood is also timber, there is no justification for the Tribunal to say that what is sold is a different commodity. However, it is a matter to be considered by the Tribunal as to whether jungle wood referred to in the appellate order is timber or only worthless wood. In these circumstances we set aside the order of the Tribunal with regard to the restoration of the addition made by the assessing authority by interfering with the order of the first appellate authority. We direct the Tribunal to consider the question as to whether jungle wood referred to in the appellate order is anything other than timber and to take a decision after affording an opportunity to the parties to be heard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The T.R.C. is disposed of as above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 525
... ...
... ... ..... cords, we find that the revisional authority acted on mere suspicion without making any enquiry into the matter and came to a finding resulting in alleged evasion of taxes by the petitioner which was considered prejudicial to the interest of the State. The suo motu revision cannot be allowed to be entertained on mere suspicion. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia, and subsequent order of reassessment dated August 3, 1996 made by the assessing authority. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia Zone, Tinsukia, to make fresh enquiry and consider the documents produced by the petitioner-firm after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes shall find out whether the tea sold by the Tea Brokers (P) Ltd., for the above periods belong to the petitioner and whether there is evasion of taxes on the part of the petitioner.
-
2003 (8) TMI 524
... ...
... ... ..... the addition from six times the value determined on the basis of check-post declarations to three times. According to us, the Tribunal should have sustained addition of only the sale value of the purchases covered by the five check-post declarations. In the above circumstances in modification of the order of the Tribunal, we direct the assessing authority to modify the assessment for the year 1992-93 by adding only the sale value of the purchases covered by the five check-post declarations. The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, in modification of the orders passed by the authorities below, we direct the assessing authority to modify the assessment by taking the actual purchase suppression of Rs. 9,610.21 and make an addition of a reasonable gross profit for arriving at the sale value. The rate of tax that should be applied is the rate of tax on the goods covered by the purchase bill. S.T. Revision is disposed of as above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 523
... ...
... ... ..... ch benefit given under section 43A before omission of the words Start production for the first time on or before the 30th day of June, 2000 by way of subsequent amendment. Now the petitioner wants to say taking advantage of the subsequent amendment of section 43A that the only pre-condition for the S.S.I. unit to get exemption under section 39 is the registration with the Directorate of Cottage and Small-scale Industries. Not only that he further claims that the effect of new registration to be given from September 21, 1995 that is, prior to the Ordinance, 1999 came into force which in our opinion is an absurd and illogical proposition. It cannot, therefore, be justified to hold in the circumstances that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of section 39 of the Act, 1994. We, accordingly hold that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to get the relief as prayed for. The application is liable to be dismissed. The application is thus dismissed without costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 522
... ...
... ... ..... e manufacture . The Tribunal in my view has rightly interpreted the words use in manufacture quot for the use in manufacture denotes the raw material which are used for manufacture of producing electrical energy and not for plant and machineries which are used for ultimate purpose of the manufacture. Indisputably the plant and machineries were purchased in the year 1984-85. The plant was commissioned in 1987-88. Thereafter the electrical energy was started to be produced. The purchase of plant and machinery in 1984-85 through form III-D was perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The law was amended with effect from September 13, 1985. The restriction which was earlier with regard to the goods purchased under section 3G at concessional rate was partially removed by the subsequent amendment, so far as it relates to the sale of electrical energy is concerned. In view of the above there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. The revision is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 521
... ...
... ... ..... l the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no evidence to show that common man used the product as a medicine. The Assistant Collector relied on the Drugs licence issued by the Drugs Controller, letter issued by the Superintendent of Ayurvedic department, SSI certificate obtained by the respondents for manufacturing ayurvedic oil under a drug licence, etc. The Supreme Court observed as follows In this case the report of the Range Officer shows that dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers, chemists and druggist all consider 39 Himtaj oil 39 to be an ayurvedic medicament. Apart from that the other material relied upon by the Assistant Collector (which has been set out hereinabove) also clearly shows that 39 Himtaj oil 39 is an ayurvedic medicament. These tax revision cases are accordingly, dismissed. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court with the signature of the registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam.
-
2003 (8) TMI 520
... ...
... ... ..... e the way-bill and get it counter-signed at the sales tax check-post within Dum Dum P.S. (and around the Calcutta International Airport) at the point of entry is a clear contravention of rule 211(1) and thereby of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The seizure and the consequential penalty proceeding are therefore valid. 6.. As for the plea of the petitioner that the goods were seized before 48 hours, there is not much merit in it. The statute provides under section 70(1) that the detention shall not exceed 48 hours. But for failure to produce documents after detention and after a due show cause notice (as was done in the instant case), a seizure may be held early. 7.. Accordingly the order of seizure and the subsequent show cause notice for penalty proceedings cannot but be sustained. The application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. 8.. Without any order as to costs. 9.. P.K. GANGULY (Judicial Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 519
... ...
... ... ..... this Court has held that the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited 1981 48 STC 411 1981 UPTC 1249 still holds field. Feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the applicant to distinguish the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court given in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited 1981 48 STC 411 (SC) 1981 UPTC 1249. In view of definite pronouncement made by Supreme Court and by another learned single Judge it is not open for me to entertain the said plea. 12.. The case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited 1981 48 STC 411 (SC) 1981 UPTC 1249 was very much there during the assessment proceeding. The applicant has failed to file requisite form C up to the Tribunal stage. Thus there is no error in the order of the Tribunal holding that the applicant has failed to comply with the provisions of section 9(1-B)(a) of the Act. 13.. I do not find any merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 518
... ...
... ... ..... ent had been received, the petitioner woke up and challenges only the subsequent notice for fresh assessment under section 11(1) of the Act of 1941 - with the argument that the previous notices also are void. A statutory period is given for challenging any action or order of the taxing authorities. At least in case of any prejudice by such action or order, the petitioner is required to come to the Tribunal within a reasonable period, making no unreasonable delay. The petitioner 39 s advocate 39 s attempt to challenge the order dated October 15, 1996 or December 27, 1996 cannot as such and in view of a decision of rejection dated February 15, 2001 of this Tribunal cannot but fail. 8.. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner 39 s prayer for setting aside the notices annexure C and the proposed reassessment proceeding must fail. The application therefore is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Parties do bear their respective costs. 9.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2003 (8) TMI 517
... ...
... ... ..... ver, the proceedings do not confine the benefit only to the basic tax as contended by the respondents. The word outstanding has to be understood as an amount payable by the petitioner in terms of sales tax laws. In the case on hand, penalty and interest are relatable to the tax due, and, therefore, it is certainly an outstanding in terms of sales tax laws. Therefore, the respondents 39 restricting the relief only for the period 1986-87 and rejecting the request for other years on the ground of no outstandings in my view, requires interference in the light of the object of annexure A. 7.. In the circumstances, accepting the arguments of the petitioner, I deem it proper to set aside annexure C and direct the respondents to consider annexure B in its entirety in the light of annexure A and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Time for compliance is three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 516
... ...
... ... ..... on of demand of tax in pursuance thereof? . 2.. The matter herein appears to be covered by decision of honourable Supreme Court in Birla Cement Works v. State of Rajasthan 1994 94 STC 422. 3.. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the honourable Supreme Court on the question referred to above, the answer of the question has to be in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So ordered. Reference answered in favour of assessee. Oral.
-
2003 (8) TMI 515
... ...
... ... ..... eals of the petitioner by examining at length the materials in support of the findings of suppression in the order of the assessing officer and the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the rejection of the appeals of the petitioner by the impugned order dated May 23, 2000 of the Tribunal is not in accordance with the provisions of rule 60(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. The Tribunal will re-hear now not only the Second Appeals Nos. 626 and 627 of 1992-93, but also Second Appeals Nos. 2054 and 2055 of 1992-93 filed by the State of Orissa and pass fresh orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 4.. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated May 23, 2000 and August 22, 2002 passed by the Tribunal are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for re-hearing of the matter afresh. 5.. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are to bear their costs. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. - I agree. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 514
... ...
... ... ..... facts. It is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3.. The department as well as the Government had clearly understood entry 23 to mean that fresh milk included pasteurised milk. They had been accepting the claim of the dealers. After the decision of the division Bench in Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union (2001) 9 KTR 459 (Ker), the Government had proceeded to issue a notification granting retrospective exemption to the co-operative societies with effect from January 1, 1994. This was a clear confirmation of the consistent view that the department had been taking. Thus, no reason for reopening the assessment was made out. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notices are set aside. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 4712 of 2003 in O.P. No. 2612 of 2003(J) dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 10475 of 2002 in O.P. No. 5975 of 2002(J) dismissed. Writ petitions allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 513
... ...
... ... ..... w of the decision of this Court discussed above and in the light of the provisions of the KGST Act - item 122 of the First Schedule and item 24 of S.R.O. No. 342 of 1963 no inspiration can be derived from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court discussed above. 12.. For all these reasons, we are in full agreement with the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax that the assessing authority had omitted to include the turnover of skimmed milk powder in the taxable turnover for the year 1991-92. In these circumstances, though the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had cancelled the order of the Deputy Commissioner, only on the ground that there is no material before the Deputy Commissioner to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction vested under section 35 of the Act, we find that the said finding of the Tribunal is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner (annexure B). Petition allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 512
... ...
... ... ..... ss amount of tax paid in a case where an assessment was deemed to have been made. Hence, the application for refund, in our view, should have been filed under sub-section (4) of section 46A of the Act, 1994. Since the application for refund was not filed in the appropriate forum, the petitioner 39 s claim was rightly refused by the authority. 11.. We, therefore, find no merits in the application. However, to avoid unnecessary delay and to meet the ends of justice, we direct that the application of the petitioner, praying for refund under section 60, if at all, is pending may be treated as an application under sub-section (4) of section 46A and shall be referred within four weeks from the date of the order, to the appropriate authority for its final disposal on merits. If no such application is pending a fresh application may be filed, if advised, in accordance with law claiming refund. 12.. The application is, thus disposed without costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
........
|
