|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 615 Records
-
2004 (9) TMI 633 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... e think that Commissioner 39 s assessment still leaves scope for reconsideration both because it appears that the assessment was too high and the rate of occupancy, appear to be lower than assumed by him. But these are all questions of fact which are best decided by the statutory authorities. Having thus considered all aspects, perused all documents submitted and heard both sides we hold that the ends of justice will be best served if the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax gives another hearing to the petitioner after a due notice within the shortest possible time, preferably within a month from the receipt of this order and decides finally assessment for the period in question, viz., March 28, 1997 to March 26, 1998, in the light of the observations made by us. The penalty of Rs. 10,000 however, is set aside as the statute does not admit of partial condonation. The application is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. P.K. GANGULY (Judicial Member). - I agree.
-
2004 (9) TMI 632 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th title deed and possession certificate issued by the Village Officer. Assessing officer will verify the lease deed, summon the building owner and ensure that there is proper lease and thereafter consider the same if necessary by conducting local enquiry and inspection and then to grant registration to the dealer. The writ petition is disposed of directing the officer to reconsider the matter if petitioner makes offer in terms of above observations. I make it clear that if petitioner does not offer credible people as sureties with sufficient assets available with them, it will be open to the officer to accept bank guarantee for reasonable amount and keep on monitoring the business by checking monthly returns and periodical inspection and survey so that liability do not get accumulated making recovery impossible. Final decision will be taken on the application for registration within one month from the date of the petitioner producing lease deed and security as stated above.
-
2004 (9) TMI 631 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... correct in law, it will have serious consequence so far as the State revenue is concerned. Under these circumstances, if a revisional authority who is conferred with the power of examining the correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate officers, on such examination is satisfied that the decision of the subordinate officer is erroneous in law, even if he has followed the decision of the higher authorities, we are of the view that under these circumstances, it must be held that the revisional authority is within his jurisdiction to interfere against such a decision of the assessing authority/ subordinate officer. Therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the third submission of Sri Prasad. In the light of the discussion made above, these appeals are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, they are rejected. However, no order is made as to costs. Sri B. Anand, learned Additional Government Advocate is given four weeks 39 time to file his memo of appearance.
-
2004 (9) TMI 630 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that entry tax on these items is attracted for use by the importer, that is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore motor vehicle, it 39 s chassis or body apparently attracts tax when imported for use or sale as no consumption of it is contemplated, nor is it capable of consumption. Therefore, exhibit P1 assessment of entry tax on the import of chassis for export to the owner after building bus body is totally untenable. Consequently the penalty proposed, vide, exhibit P11 is also not tenable. Accordingly exhibits P1 and P11 are quashed and respondents are prohibited from imposing any entry tax on similar transactions by the petitioner in future. However, I make it clear that respondents are entitled to consider petitioner 39 s liability for purchase tax or sales tax in respect of bus body building work and if there is any case for levy of tax under the KGST Act, it is open to them to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the KGST Act and Rules. W.P. is allowed as above.
-
2004 (9) TMI 629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cial manner on satisfying the conditions contemplated therein. The provision is incorporated in the statute only to exercise the same and not to put the same just ornamental to the statute. It is a settled law that If a statute invests a public officer with authority to do an act in a specified set of circumstances, it is his duty to exercise that power which is invested in aid of enforcement of a right as held in L. Ar. Arunachalam Pillai and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1980 45 STC 109 (Mad) FB . We, therefore, constrained to set aside the order, however remit the same to the respondent/Commissioner to consider the matter afresh with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the petition dated March 18, 2002 of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.P. .P. No. 20823 of 2003 is closed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 628 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Similarly, the fact that even though the petitioner initially registered the Company in the name of Tvl. Integrated Water Proofing Limited , they subsequently got their name amended in an abbreviated form, viz., IWL India Limited , and got amended in the records of the Registrar of Companies as well as the statutory authorities, is also brought to our notice. Mr. Ayyasamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department is not in a position to deny the above factual contention based on the relevant clauses of the agreement, notification, proceedings of Registrar of Companies and the statutory authorities. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification in refusing to give the deferral benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the impugned demand notice dated July 31, 2002 and set aside the order dated October 30, 2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.P. No. 805 of 2002 and consequently the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
-
2004 (9) TMI 627 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... and Revisional Board which orders do not dwell upon the true nature of the controversy are required to be set, aside and are set aside. We direct the respondent No. 1, C.T.O., Durgapur Charge, to rehear the assessment case of the petitioner in respect of four quarters ending March 31, 1985 particularly with regard to the dealer 39 s claim regarding its alleged non-liability to pay any tax for the amount of Rs. 2,71,90,131.33 as made by the petitioner keeping in view the principle of law as enunciated in the body of the judgment. The petitioner may be given an opportunity to file the original contracts concerning which the petitioner lays its claim and to file also other documents needed to prove its case. A decision, while reassessing, is directed to be given as per law following the guidelines indicated above and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The application is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2004 (9) TMI 626 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rary. Each state is entitled to fix the rate of interest and levy of interest by one State cannot be considered to be arbitrary with reference to the rate of interest provided in another State enactment. On the whole there is no merits in this writ petition, it is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioner has got any case regarding the calculation of interest made by the assessing authority, certainly the petitioner is entitled to point out the same before the authority and the concerned authority will consider the same and pass appropriate orders on such representation. It is made clear that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, demand as on now, will stand. The stay already granted will continue for a period of two months. This is to enable the petitioner to file the representation mentioned earlier in regard to calculation mistakes and to get orders from the authorities concerned. Order on C.M.P. No. 52833 of 2000 in O.P. No. 31108 of 2000(C) dismissed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 625 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... account of the release of bank guarantee by the department to the transporter, it is for the petitioner to file a suit against the department or transporter, as the case may be, or against both. There is no scope for interference by this court in recovery proceedings for recovery of penalty levied on the petitioner and sustained in two levels. However, this is a case which requires enquiry by the department of Commercial Taxes because the department has released bank guarantee furnished towards security for release of goods. In the normal course when penalty was levied bank guarantee should have been furnished and it was for transporter and the petitioner to settle the liability between them. The Commissioner is directed to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action, if necessary, against the person who released the bank guarantee without any proper security being furnished by the petitioner, who was proceeded against for penalty. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2004 (9) TMI 624 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titled to get the similar relief and accordingly it is provided that the directions and benefits rendered in the above-mentioned cases shall also be equally applicable to all the writ petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions. Hence, a writ of mandamus is hereby issued as follows (a) the respondents are directed not to deduct any tax at source from the bills of the petitioners pertaining to the related works contract on labour component, declared goods and the goods obtained in the course of inter-State sale relatable to taxable turnover as computed under section 8(3)(iv) read with section 27 of the Act and rule 35 of the Rules as amended and (b) the respondents are further directed to refund the amount if already deducted from the petitioners 39 bills, in accordance with law. For the forgoing reasons and observations, this batch of writ petitions succeeds and stands allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (9) TMI 623 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re-supposes an original assessment. When there is no original assessment, there is no question of escapement of assessment. The petitioner in this case has not filed any returns either offering certain turnover for assessment or claiming that there was no taxable turnover or claiming any exemption as to tax liability and as such no turnover was subjected to assessment for the relevant years. That is the precise reason given by the Tribunal also for which they have relied on a comparable provision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of K. Govindan and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin 2001 247 ITR 192 (SC) (2000) JT Supp. 3 SC 394. Having regard to the reasons given by the Tribunal, we are of the view that there are absolutely no merits in this writ petition and the same has to be dismissed. 6.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is also dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 622 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Chairman of SLC to enable the fresh constituted committee to decide the appeal on merits. It is made clear that constitution of appellate committee of which Mr. V. Tripathi is the member shall continue to function as it is for all other cases. In other words, this order may not be construed to mean that Mr. V. Tripathi is held ineligible to function as member of Appellate Committee. The prohibition of his becoming member of appellate authority will only confine to those appeals which are filed against his orders where he has acted as chairman of SLC. It is made clear that this Court has not applied its mind to the facts of the case on merits and hence, the appellate committee shall hear and decide the appeal uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court on merits as also the appellate committee shall decide the appeal totally uninfluenced by the fact of petition being allowed. Let this be done within six months as an outer limit. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 621 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... make a specific request for cross-examining the consignor and that it was sufficient that the revision petitioner raised such a ground in the grounds of the appeal before the appellate authority. There is no merit in this contention. The above mentioned decision of the division Bench does not state that the assessee need not make any request. On the contrary, it is only stated in the judgment that where evidentiary material procured from or produced by a third party is sought to be relied upon for showing that the return submitted by the assessee was incorrect and incomplete, assessee is entitled to have the concerned third party summoned as witness for cross-examination. Therefore, we hold that only if the assessee had sought an opportunity to verify the records of the consignor and the cross-examine him and the request was turned down, the assessee can assail the assessment order on that ground. 3.. In the above circumstances, the revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 620 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s contract of bailment as it was deemed sale within the legal fiction and engrafted under clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court will not have to see whether the contract entered between the parties was in effect of bailment or not, but whether the goods had been transferred for any purpose mentioned in clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution of India. Going by the provisions of the agreement, we find that the crane was in effect transferred for the purposes of rendering service to HSL. The period of hire was given as twelve months. The rent was fixed at Rs. 4.35 lakhs per month and it was termed as hire charges. The provisions of the agreement, if read together, leave no room for doubt that the crane was given on hire and the possession was transferred for its utilisation by the HSL and therefore, in our view, the order of the Tribunal would not need any interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 619 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it follows that the same cannot be taken under the new Act as well. 6.. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the aforementioned legal position nor could he point out any factual distinction in the two notices, i.e., the one sent under the old Act which was withdrawn after inquiry by order (annexure B) and the impugned notice issued under the new Act. In this view of the matter, the impugned notices cannot be sustained in law, they being totally without jurisdiction. 7.. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, I do not wish to go into the factual issues of the case which were sought to be made subject-matter of the two notices because no attempt was made by the parties to show any distinguishable facts in two. 8.. In view of foregoing reasons, petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned notices (annexures C and E) and order dated June 7, 1996 (annexure H) issued/passed by respondents are hereby quashed by writ of certiorari. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 618 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... , otherwise the whole purpose and object of the provision of section 69A will be frustrated. The statute does not say that a dealer shall store the goods in the new warehouse without giving any intimation as required under section 97 of the Act, 1994 only because timelimit has not been prescribed. An offence under section 69A shall be deemed to have been completed if the goods are stored in a new warehouse without the knowledge of the respondents. For the purpose of taking presumption under section 69A, two conditions are necessary - (a) that a dealer has not furnished the information about the new godown and (b) stored goods in such godown before furnishing the information. In this case, both the conditions were satisfied. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner clearly violated that provisions of section 69A of the Act, 1994 as such is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The application, therefore, is dismissed without costs. A. Deb (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2004 (9) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Advani Oerlikon 1980 45 STC 32 (SC), which was also followed in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Kerala Rubber and Allied Products 1993 90 STC 170 (SC). 9.4. In Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 2001 124 STC 586 (SC), it was held that it is that sale consideration, whether in cash or otherwise, which is receivable in respect of sales made by the dealer which can possibly form part of the turnover of a dealer. 9.5. From the law as enunciated from the decisions referred supra, we are convinced that in view of explanation 2(iii) to section 2(r) of the Act, the cash or other discount on the price of goods sold cannot be included in the turnover for levy of tax. 9.6. Question (iii) is answered in negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. VI. RESULT 10.. In result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. Writ petition allowed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 616 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nal notices, the petitioners can avail a statutory remedy by way of filing revision petitions before the Deputy commissioner concerned under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. In view of the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, there is no point in quashing the impugned order in the goods detention notices impugned in O.P. Nos. 864/2003 to 874/2003. Consequently, all the original petitions (O.P. Nos. 864/2003 to 874/2003) are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file revision petitions under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 against all the goods detention notices impugned in O.P. Nos. 864 of 2003 to 874 of 2003. The stay petitions in O.M.P. Nos. 871 of 2003 to 892 of 2003 are also dismissed. 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 1st day of August, 2003.
-
2004 (9) TMI 615 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exempt from getting vehicles registered and from payment of the registration fee unless such authority as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify for the purpose of registration of vehicles belonging to the Central Government and are used for the purposes relating to the defence of the Country and are unconnected with any commercial enterprise. That means that without a notification from the Central Government, even the Central Government vehicles are not exempt from registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Murthy while arguing the matter, also stated that while purchasing the vehicles from Pune, the petitioners had paid Central sales tax, which makes it abundantly clear that the vehicles owned by the petitioners were not exempt from sales tax and were not engaged exclusively in Defence of India. 10.. For these reasons, we do not find merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2004 (9) TMI 614 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... x. In the circumstances, the search and seizure of books of accounts and documents relating to respondent No. l conducted by the petitioners pursuant to section 66 of the Act cannot be held illegal or arbitrary. As such, the decision arrived at by the learned Tribunal Judge in case No. R.N. 489 of 2001 allowing the application preferred by the respondent No. 1 under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 should not be allowed to continue. 15.. We, therefore, hold that the judgment dated December 24, 2003 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. R.N. 489 of 2001 is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly it is set aside. 16.. Petitioners are given liberty to take further steps against the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the notice dated November 19, 2001 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as early as possible. 17.. The application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 18.. I agree. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
