|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 468 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 511
... ...
... ... ..... em Nath. Therefore, the only view which could be taken is that the issuance of licence was after the acceptance of surety bonds by the defendant-appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is liable to be set aside. 9.. I am further of the view that the revenue of the State cannot be casually dealt with and in such like matters, no one should be allowed to wriggle out of the responsibility undertaken by him. Therefore, the recovery sought to be effected from the plaintiffrespondents is not hit by any illegality and the suit of the plaintiffrespondents is liable to be dismissed. 10.. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment dated August 13, 1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, is set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge dated July 22, 1980 is restored. The suit of the plaintiff-respondents is dismissed by upholding the recovery sought to be made from them. Appeal allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 510
... ...
... ... ..... nt in State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan 1989 73 STC 1 where the printing and supply of question papers to a university was involved. This Court held that though there was sale of paper and ink, it was merely incidental. It was not a case of sale but a works contract having regard to the nature of the job to be done. Following this judgment, the High Court held that there was no sale. Having regard to the fact as found, we do not see any error in the conclusion of the High Court. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. 7.. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the work of job printing is not liable for imposition of sales tax under the Act and entry No. 30 of Schedule VI of the Act so far it relates to the jobwork of printing press is concerned, stands excluded/exempted from tax. The writ petition stands allowed. Assessment made, if any, pursuant to such entry in respect of job-work of printing stands quashed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 509
... ...
... ... ..... ommodities so obtained are different commodities from wheat. In B.P. Oil Mills Ltd. v. Sales Tax Tribunal 1998 111 STC 188 (SC) AIR 1998 SC 3055, it was held that process of changing crude oil into refined oil is a manufacturing activity. 9.. In this case, raw rubber wood emerges as a commercially different commodity with its own price structure with different use and independent identity as a distinct product recognised by the trade and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the process of making chemically treated rubber wood as done by the appellant is a manufacturing activity even prior to April 1, 1998 and they are entitled to get benefit of the Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 dated November 3, 1993. Therefore, order No. C3-47632/02/CT dated January 1, 2003 passed by the Commissioner is not correct and is set aside. We hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993. The appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 508
... ...
... ... ..... ies v. Collector of Central Excise 2003 131 STC 9 (2003) 3 SCC 111. 22.. There is one additional reason for not including the essences within the definition of word foodstuff . The essences are the substance obtained from a plant, drug or alike by distillation, infusion etc., and containing its characteristic property in concentrated form. The foodstuff is generally understood include solid items . Liquid items are covered by the word beverages. The beverages mean drink of any kind other than water as tea, coffee, bear and milk, etc. 23.. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order of the Tribunal holding that food colour and essences are foodstuffs within the meaning of aforesaid notification, is not legally correct. The order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 24.. For the reasons given above all the four revisions are allowed and the question of law raised by the department is decided in its favour and against the dealer-opposite party. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 507
... ...
... ... ..... d of limitation, we are not convinced about the cause of delay explained and we are also not convinced about the maintainability of this application............ 11.. Therefore, previously the application for condonation filed by the M/s. Promising Exports Ltd. on the identical facts and circumstances was considered and rejected since the grounds were not found to be convincing. In view of such findings, the present application for condonation of delay, therefore, cannot be entertained. The application, therefore, is liable to be rejected, since the facts and circumstances of the case are identical. 12.. The application for condonation of delay is thus rejected and consequently, the original application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Trubunal Act being hit by the period of limitation cannot be admitted for hearing on merits. The application under section 8, accordingly, is not admitted being barred by limitation. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 506
... ...
... ... ..... n, where an application for prior permission was made diligently in terms of the notifications S.O. Nos. 57 and 58, but no decision was communicated either by the specified authorities within sixty days and by the higher authorities within the next sixty days. Neither it is treated a deemed grant or deemed refusal. This position was known to the entrepreneurs. Therefore, it appears that the pending applications also lapsed on the expiry of the policy on August 31, 2000. Probably this amendment was introduced to save those units, who in spite of their best efforts were not in a position to start production before the expiry of the policy. 16.. Having considered the claim of the petitioner from various angles, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for. As noticed above, there is no scope for any liberal construction for accepting the claim of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 505
... ...
... ... ..... om stainless steel wire. Therefore, stainless steel wire resistance cannot be treated as a declared goods and the petitioner cannot claim any exemption. 3.. Although my learned brother has sufficiently recorded his opinion with regard to the reopening of the case, I want to say that section 46A(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with rule 181D empowers the Deputy Commissioner to reopen the case and there is nothing wrong in initiating the assessment proceedings by issuing form No. 29. Reassessment was rightly done under section 45(1) of the Act and making of a single order in respect of two periods is only a technical error and we should not make any wrong inference from such technicality. Thus there is nothing wrong in the order dated September 20, 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the notice of assessment in form No. 29 vide Memo No. 4437 dated January 15, 2002 which was issued under section 45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1994. Application dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 504
... ...
... ... ..... Sulekha Clay Mines before deciding the said question. It is also open to the assessee to produce all materials and evidences in support of their contention that there is no transfer of right to use the goods. We accordingly, set aside the orders of the three authorities on this aspect and remit the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. It is open to the assessee to place all evidences before the assessing authority in support of his claim. The tax revision cases are disposed of as above. 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. Order on C.M.P. No. 4714 of 2001 in O.P. No. 422 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4717 of 2001 in T.R.C. No. 424 of 2001 dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 4719 of 2001 in O.P. No. 425 of 2001 dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 503
... ...
... ... ..... of Kerala was entitled to the reduction in the amount of entry tax to the extent of the tax paid by him outside the State. In the present case, the appellant had admittedly paid an amount of Rs. 22,315.86 by way of sales tax in the State of Karnataka. Notice was given to him after a lapse of more than three years on February 19, 1998. He was called upon to show cause as to why a tax of Rs. 18,000 be not levied. However, ultimately a demand for Rs. 23,640 was raised. The appellant was entitled to the reduction to the extent of the tax he had already paid. To that extent, the demand was not sustainable. (3) Even in the connected case, the benefit shall be admissible to the appellant. In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The authority shall decide the matter in the light of the observations. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 269 of 1999 in W.A. No. 113 of 1999 dismissed. Appeals allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 502
... ...
... ... ..... tion whether in the form of goods or in some other form within brackets. Even without the bracketed portion the intention of the Parliament in incorporating clause (29A)(b) in article 366 is to levy tax on the transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract. We are of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the assessment of the materials transferred in the execution of works contract in the instant case is without authority of law. We are in full agreement with the assessing authority and the two appellate authorities that the turnover of materials transferred in the execution of works contract is liable to be assessed under the Act subject to the disciplines provided under the Constitution, the Central Sales Tax Act and under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the instant case there is no such inhibition. In the circumstances, there is no merit in these revision petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 501
... ...
... ... ..... ngly the Legislature has not prescribed any rate of interest if refund is not made within a reasonable period. In common law, if a person holds the money lawfully belonging to the other, the person entitled to the money as and by way of compensation is entitled to interest. This appears to be the decision of the different High Courts including this High Court. The reasonable time to refund the money in the instant case should be deemed to be August 1, 2001. Having regard to the fact that the rate of interest has gone down substantially, the refund amount shall carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from August 1, 2001, until the date of refund. Let the interest amount be paid to the petitioner as quickly as possible but not later than one month from the date of service of copy of this order upon the appropriate authority. It is made clear that the refund has been effected on November 23, 2002. This writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 500
... ...
... ... ..... tion in accordance with law. (2) If the second respondent had either or not deducted tax at source and failed to deposit the amount to the authority, then, the first respondent shall proceed in accordance with section 7-F(8) read with section 7-F(7), as if the tax has become due for payment by the person as provided under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 7-F of the Act. 6.. Accordingly, there will be an order in the above lines. 7.. In view of the above orders, the impugned attachment order and the B6 notice both dated April 28, 2003 issued by the first respondent are quashed. 8.. In the result, the original petition is allowed in the above manner. Consequently, the stay petition in O.M.P. No. 650 of 2003 does not survive. 9.. 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 13th day of August, 2003. Original petition allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 499
... ...
... ... ..... crap. The finished goods obtained after the casting could not be treated as cast iron and therefore the ingot moulds scrap now sold by the assessee are not identical to the pig iron and therefore the contention of the assessee was rightly negatived by all the authorities including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. For the abovesaid reasons, the Tribunal was justified in holding that each item listed are different entity and separate commodities for the purpose of single point taxation and the pig iron and its ingot moulds scrap are different commodities and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for exemption claimed on second sale. For the abovesaid reasons, the Tribunal and the lower authorities have not committed any error and the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7.. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 509 of 1990. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 498
... ...
... ... ..... and the document was in its possession. 26.. In the instant case where dispute relates as to whether the appeals were decided or not and whether the order of the appellate authority is genuine or forged and fabricated documents it was necessary for the respondents to file affidavit of Shri Mohd. Jafar and as they have chosen not to file any affidavit of said Shri Mohd. Jafar and no explanation has been furnished for not filing such an affidavit, we draw adverse inference against the department. 27.. To sum up, petitioner succeeds in establishing that his appeals for the aforesaid assessment years were heard and decided by a common order dated May 22, 1982 and Revenue dispatched him the certified copy of the said order, which is admissible under the law. Department miserably failed to demolish petitioner-assessees case. In view of the above, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned notice dated March 3, 1983 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 497
... ...
... ... ..... nut husk and coconut fibre are two distinctly different commodities. The same is not true of refined soyabean oil and til oil. 30.. So the decision in Coco Fibres 1991 80 STC 249 (SC), does not support the petitioners case. 31.. On the other hand three cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents support their stand that unless a new commodity emerges, manufacture does not take place under sales tax law. Please see (a) State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores reported in 2003 129 STC 79 (SC), (b) State of Tamil Nadu v. O.P. Aliyar, reported in 1992 87 STC 339 (Mad.) and (c) Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bherhaghat Mineral Industries reported in 2000 120 STC 205 (SC) . 32.. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment of the Tribunal is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. S.P. TALUKAR, J.-I agree. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 496
... ...
... ... ..... x is covered by a Notification No. ST-II-4949/X-10(2)-74 dated May 30, 1975. The relevant portion of the said notification is quoted below M stands for sale by manufacturer in Uttar Pradesh. I stands for sale by the importer in Uttar Pradesh. Sl. No. Description of goods Point at which tax shall be levied Rate of tax I II III IV 1. All kind of minerals, ores, metals and alloys except those included in any other notification issued under the Act. M or I 2 per cent 3. It has been held that Borax is a mineral. The learned Standing Counsel could not point out anything otherwise. 4. In view of the above there is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 495
... ...
... ... ..... penses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss. 14.. In the case before this Court, we are satisfied that there is no mala fide on the part of the petitioner in not filing appeals within the stipulated period. Its applications to get certified copies were still pending when appeals were dismissed being barred by limitation. What to talk of accepting explanation of the petitioner, it was not even noted by the authorities below. 15.. Under these circumstances and in view of the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court referred to above, petitioner is entitled to get its appeals decided on merit. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and impugned orders annexures P6 and P9 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) at Ambala for fresh decision on merits. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 494
... ...
... ... ..... se of signifying the fact that the oil content in the rice bran has been extracted to the extent possible, as and by way of a commercial term for the purpose of making the people aware as to exactly what he is being offered for sale. 15.. In the facts and circumstances, I declare the de-oiled rice bran is rice bran and nothing else. The same is covered by Schedule I, 14(c)(ii) of the Act and accordingly, no tax is leviable thereon. With that declaration, I set aside the original order of assessment as well as the appellate order and remand back the matter to the assessing authority for the purpose concluding the assessment on the basis of the above declaration. 16.. This disposes of the writ petition. 17.. There shall be no order as to costs. Let xeroxed signed copies of this judgment and order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon usual undertaking. Writ petition allowed. Oil Seeds, Oil Trade and Industrys Association v. State of Karnataka 1998 111 STC 234.
-
2003 (8) TMI 493
... ...
... ... ..... set aside at the instance of the petitioner in the light of collection of tax by the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner with regard to understanding by the petitioner/Deputy Commissioner cannot be accepted. Exemptions are given as a special case and exemptions are to be understood in terms of the notification. Understanding/misunderstanding of the petitioner/ Deputy Commissioner is not a ground to set aside the clause. 8.. Insofar as merits of assessment proceedings are concerned, admittedly they are appealable in character. Therefore I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to avail of the appeal remedy within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed within four weeks, in terms of this order, the appellate authority would consider the case on merits, in accordance with law and complete the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 492
... ...
... ... ..... her points raised by the parties by way of a direction to the respondent to send the records pertaining to provisional assessment orders and the demands to the assessing officer, who in turn is directed to take a decision with regard to assessment/reassessment in terms of this Act. Time for taking decision is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any decision is taken either to assess or reassess in terms of this Act, a further direction is given to complete the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the interest of both the parties, after providing opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 10.. At this stage, Sri Anand, learned High Court Government Advocate, undertakes before me that they would not enforce the demands till a final decision is taken in terms of this order by regular assessing authority. His statement is recorded. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
........
|
