|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 654 Records
-
2003 (9) TMI 746 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itself to overrule the possibility of any presumption and to give liberty to any officer to exercise any kind of discretion. 13.. In my opinion, in the present case, the whole exercise was made on suspicions and presumption and without any basis. The detention of goods and subsequently its seizure was wholly arbitrary. The authority concerned are directed to release the goods forthwith. However, while releasing the goods, they may take all precautions whatever they feel necessary to ensure that the goods may cross the State of U.P. and in case, if it is found that form XXXIV is not surrendered, presumption would be raised for its being sold and in that situation, they may catch hold the person responsible for the purpose of the assessment in accordance to the law. 14.. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order Tribunal dated May 28, 2003 is set aside and the authority concerned are directed to release the seized goods forthwith without any security. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 745 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6.. So far as the challenge against the proposal for cancellation of registration on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Sales Tax Act in regard to filing of returns and payment of tax, I direct the assessing officer to keep in abeyance the said proceedings for a period of two months from now. petitioner will within two months from now file complete returns and remit taxes payable with interest thereon. Since the amount involved is very high, it is open to the assessing officer to grant instalment facility to the petitioner, if the petitioner furnishes security for the same, and if the petitioner does not comply with statutory provisions, the officer is free to proceed for recovery of arrears against the petitioner and by cancelling the registration or any other coercive steps available to him under the statute. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 9304 of 2003 in O.P. No. 5295 of 2003 dismissed. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (9) TMI 744 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of fact rendered by the assessing authority is so perverse or unreasonable that no authority trained in law could have come to such a conclusion, this Court cannot interfere. Of course, this court can interfere if this Court comes to the conclusion that the finding was based on irrelevant or inadmissible materials or that while arriving at the finding, relevant materials produced have been left out of consideration. We find that none of these contingencies has occurred in this case. Mere reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court by itself cannot alter the position or demonstrate before us that the procedure adopted by the assessing authority and the finding rendered by it are unsustainable, viewed from the angle of exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.. Thus, on an anxious consideration of the relevant aspects, we are satisfied that these writ petitions do not deserve to succeed. Hence, they are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed
-
2003 (9) TMI 743 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... adopted with respect to the same agreement. That apart, we find that the proportion adopted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer appears to be reasonable, for, under the agreement approximately four years period is granted for slaughter tapping and clear felling which would mean that the agricultural income from slaughter tapping would represent a major part of the consideration. 7.. Taking into account all the circumstances, we are of the view that the timber value adopted by the assessing authority has to be restricted to 40 per cent of the consideration received under the agreement dated October 22, 1986. We accordingly direct the assessing authority to modify the assessment by adopting 40 per cent of the amount of Rs. 13,32,500 as the timber value and to assess the same at the hands of the petitioner and others as an association of persons. The orders of the two appellate authorities will stand modified to the above extent. T.R.C. is allowed as above. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 742 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... score. Before we part with the case we may hasten to add that we have only clarified the position and that would not be a remora when the validity of the aforesaid provision is challenged in future in any litigation as we have not adverted to the constitutional validity at all. We further clarify that we have not touched the merits of the any order of assessment passed by the assessing officer. We may also clarify that the clarificatory observations can be pressed into service before any other forum. 11.. At this juncture Mr. Nair has submitted that the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the proceeding strictly as per the clarification made by this Court. Appreciating the aforesaid submission we proceed to state that the Tribunal shall keep in view the observations made above and strictly follow the same while deciding the matter pending before it. 12.. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (9) TMI 741 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... es, the assessing officer should have come to a proper finding by assessing the value of the goods according to the prevailing market price and by way of application of his judicious mind. But, unfortunately, it was not done in this case. We, therefore, find that the orders passed by the learned Board and the assessing and appellate authority are not sustainable under law. The orders are liable to be set aside. 9.. We, for the reasons discussed above set aside, the said impugned orders passed by the learned assessing, appellate and revisional authorities and direct the learned Commercial Tax Officer to hold a fresh assessment in accordance with the law taking into consideration the prevalent market price of the goods in question without being influenced by the findings of entry tax officer and also giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 10.. The application is thus disposed of without costs. 11.. A. Deb (Technical Member). - I agree. Application disposed of.
-
2003 (9) TMI 740 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bscribers and collected rental on the same. The question was whether the Department of Telecommunication is a dealer and hence liable to pay trade tax. The Supreme Court held that the supply of telephone connection satisfied the requirement of the transfer of the right to use for consideration. The telephone and all other accessories giving access to the telephone exchange are goods, and hence the requirement of section 3-F are satisfied and the Department of Telecommunication is a dealer and is liable to pay tax under the Act. 11.. It has been clearly held in the above decision that the fact that the goods remain within the ultimate control of the owner is irrelevant for deciding whether there was a transfer of use. Hence we have to hold against the petitioner as we are bound by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Union of India 2003 130 STC 1 2003 UPTC 404. 12.. For the reasons given above this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 739 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hority may fix, which shall not be less than the amount of tax that would have been payable under the provisions of this Act, on the sale or purchase of such goods and not more than double the amount of such tax, less any amount which he may have actually paid as tax on the purchase of such goods. 6.. Tribunal has justified the amount of penalty levied at Rs. 2,25,000 keeping in view, that maximum penalty was three times of the tax. 7.. In my opinion, the issue relating to the quantum requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Tribunal may consider the relevant provisions which was in existence during the year under consideration and other factors while fixing the quantum of penalty. 8.. In the result, the revision is allowed in part and the order of the Tribunal dated September 27, 1991 so far as it relates to the assessment year 1982-83 is concerned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of penalty afresh. Petition partly allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 738 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the maximum penalty leviable in the present case is only Rs. 5,000. That contention does not appear to be correct. It will apply only in cases where it is not practicable to quantify the tax involved. This is a case where it is sufficiently practicable to quantify the amount of tax involved in the evasion. In such cases, the maximum penalty prescribed is the amount equal to twice the amount of sales tax so involved in the evasion. The tax evaded as earlier pointed out is Rs. 46,715. Then the maximum penalty leviable in the present case is Rs. 93,430. This view of the learned single Judge accords with the view which was already taken and we concur with the view of the learned Judge. 20.. We accordingly uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge sustaining the penalty under section 45A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 50,000 though not under section 45AA but under section 45A itself. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 737 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from petitioner No. 2 was the first point of sale and the question that the manufacturer was exempted from payment of tax was immaterial. The tax was payable on the last point of sale and in view of section 3 of the Act, the liability to pay tax arose on the last point of sale only. The fact or the statement that the purchaser from whom the tea was purchased, was enjoying the benefit of the concessions under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme has no relevance in the present case. 5.. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the apex court in the case of Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority 1992 85 STC 432 (1992) 2 SCC 683. The above case does not support the petitioner in any manner. 6.. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. The liability of the petitioner No. 2 to pay sales tax was rightly adjudicated by the concerned authority and accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 736 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... High Courts. It is not necessary to mention about the same for the reason that these questions will have to be considered by the appellate authority as in our view the writ applications are not to be entertained on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy. 11.. Under these consideration, we refuse to interfere with the impugned orders. The petitioners may file appeal or revision, as advised, and the authorities may consider the appeal or revision filed by the petitioners on merits. At this stage, it is to be clarified that earlier the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had issued certain instructions to the authorities with regard to the classification of products and that instruction has been set aside by this Court and as such the petitioners cannot raise question of bias before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the said ground. 12.. With the aforesaid observation, all the three writ applications stand disposed of. Writ applications disposed of.
-
2003 (9) TMI 735 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and that he had approached the designated authority on January 21, 2000 informing him that he had paid the entire amount under the Samadhan Scheme and requested him to issue certificate to that effect. 7.. None of these reasons stated by the petitioner have been discussed by the Principal Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner had chosen to reject the request only on the ground that there was no provision to compound the delay. For the aforesaid reasons I am unable to sustain the impugned order and having accepted the full amount without any protest and also considering that no timelimit is specified under form II as mentioned above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The respondents are directed to appropriate the amount paid by the petitioner towards the Samadhan Scheme and the petitioner will be entitled to all the benefits arising out of the scheme. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. W.M.P. No. 15463 of 2001 is closed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (9) TMI 734 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 in RN-319 of 2001 and April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992 in RN-320 of 2001 under section 11(2) of the Bengal (Finance) Sales Tax Act, 1941 are set aside as the said assessments have become time-barred as per the provisions of the statute. 22.. In respect of case No. 327 of 2001 relating to the period of assessment of 1992-93, however, it is ordered that to meet the ends of justice the ex parte assessment be set aside with liberty to the assessing authority to fix the tax liability of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of being heard and, if after proceeding under section 4(2) read with section 4(4a), the petitioner is found to have become liable to pay tax, the revenue authority shall be at liberty to proceed according to law in respect of the assessment for the period in question in terms of Bengal (Finance) Sales Tax Act, 1941. 23.. There will no order as to cost. 24.. P.K. GANGULY (Judicial Member).-I agree. Applications allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 733 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xes after the word paid . 21.. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai 1964 15 STC 450 AIR 1964 SC 1006. This was also a case relating to sales tax under the Madhya Bharath Sales Tax Act. In para 14 it was held that payment of sales tax under mistake is covered within section 74 of the Indian Contract Act let so the Government to whom the payment has been made by mistake must in law repay it. 22.. In equity also the plea of the department and the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The department cannot charge any interest as it was already in possession of the amount refundable to the dealer on the date of filing of returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. 23.. In view of the above both the revisions are allowed and it is held that the applicant-dealer is not liable to pay any interest for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 under section 8(1) of the Act. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 732 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Notification S.R.O. No. 968 of 1980 strictly has no application. However, the observations made in paragraph 9 of the said judgment already extracted would squarely apply to the present case. We are also of the view that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashok Service Centres case 1983 53 STC 1 mentioned above and relied on by the assessee also has no application having regard to the wordings of the Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993. The expression tax payable used in the notification in clause 1(a) and (b) of the Notification S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 and the said expression occurring in section 3 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act must be understood in this context only as the liability to tax determined under the Act and not the ultimate amount payable as per the assessment. In these circumstances, we hold that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is correct. There is no merit in these revisions. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 731 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssuing Notification S.R.O. No. 976/89 granting reduction in the rate of tax in respect of medical oxygen from 8 per cent to 6 per cent. These notifications at the most can only show that the Government entertained the view that medical oxygen will fall under entry No. 85 of the First Schedule to the Act. Since this view is against the assessee it cannot bind the assessee if in law medical oxygen in fact falls under entry No. 116 relating to medicine. Hence we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. 20.. In the view which we have already taken in the matter, we hold that medical oxygen and nitrous oxide have to be assessed under entry No. 116 of the First Schedule to the Act as it stood at the relevant time. The assessing authority will modify the assessment by applying the rate applicable under entry No. 116 of the First Schedule to the Act in respect of medical oxygen and nitrous oxide . The above tax revision case is disposed of as above. Petition allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 730 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of Umesh Masala Udyog v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1992 UPTC 554, and in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Alka Griha Udyog, Bareilly reported in (1999) 38 STI 208. Respectively, following the above judgments of this Court, the view taken by the Tribunal is upheld. 3.. Both the revisions lacks merit and are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 729 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble to pay tax in respect of the work relating to asphalting of roads, the question of levying penalty does not arise for consideration and therefore, the order levying penalty also has to be held as unsustainable in law. 10.. In the light of the discussion made above, we make the following order The order, annexure A, dated July 31, 2002 made in STA Nos. 736 to 747 of 2000 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore the order, annexure B, dated April 6, 2000 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) made in Nos. KST.AP.422 to 433 of 1999 and the orders of assessment, annexures C to C5, dated January 1, 2000 made for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 by the assessing officer are hereby set aside. 11.. In terms stated above, these petitions are allowed and disposed of. However, no order is made as to costs. 12.. Sri B. Anand, learned Additional Government Advocate, is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance. Petitions allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 728 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ive discount will qualify for the deduction. There is another reason also to come to the aforesaid conclusion. If the total quantity including the quantity given free in terms of the scheme is treated as sale, in that case on payment of price for lesser quantity (vials and strips), more quantity is being supplied and, thus, the aforesaid price includes the price of the medicines supplied free and as such the price of the medicines supplied free cannot be added in the taxable turnover. 25. Thus, in my view, the department was not justified in including the quantitative discount, which is a trade discount, with the taxable turnover of the petitioner and to levy tax on the same. Accordingly, the part of the assessment order including the aforesaid amount Rs. 2,95,88,480 in the taxable turnover and charging tax/ penalty thereon under the Act is quashed. 26.. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. M.L. VISA, J.-I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 727 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ection with manufacture inside the State under section 3(3) of the TNGST Act, entitling three per cent concessional levy. 15.. In this view of the matter, both the impugned orders levying tax at four per cent on the sale of paper cones and tubes to spinning mills against form XVII, are set aside the matter is remitted back to the respondent/assessing authority for redoing the assessment afresh. With respect to other levies, it is open to the petitioners to contend before the appropriate appellate forums on receipt of the revised orders of assessment from the respondent. 16.. In fine, both the original petitions are disposed of as above. Consequently, the stay petitions in O.M.P. Nos. 580 and 664 of 2003 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 23rd day of September, 2003. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
........
|
