|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 576 Records
-
2005 (10) TMI 534
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and sentencing both of them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rupees one lakh each, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months to the defaulter valid?
Whether it is necessary for officers of the gazetted rank to comply with sub-section (2) of Section 42, i.e. send the information taken down in writing by the officers to immediate official superior within seventy two hours?
-
2005 (10) TMI 533
... ...
... ... ..... his case Mr. Lakshmikumaran learned Counsel very fairly states that the Respondent will pay at the rate at which the goods are sold to independent third parties. We, therefore, send the matter back to the Commissioner in order to re-work the duty on the basis of sale made to third parties. To that extent, the Tribunal’s order stands varied. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 532
... ...
... ... ..... anan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 531
... ...
... ... ..... e. It is well settled law that duty cannot be levied on a basis not set out in the show cause notice. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the duty by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Purushotham Goculdas Plywood Company v. CCE reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 30 (T). The decision holds that if the total clearance does not exceed ₹ 30 Lakhs then the benefit of the Notification can be availed of. CEGAT has refused to interfere on the ground that the earlier decision has not yet been over-ruled. We are told that now the question covered by Purushotham Goculdas Plywood Company has been referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration. As we have already held that this the ground on which duty was not the ground on which duty was levied, we see no need to go into this question. We leave this question open to be decided by the Larger Bench. In this view we have taken, we see no reason to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 530
Whether the appointment of Respondent No.3-Ms Neera Yadav as Chief Secretary of Respondent No.2 i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh valid?
-
2005 (10) TMI 528
... ...
... ... ..... rer who sent the inputs for further working to a job worker is required to bring back the waste and scrap arising out of such working or discharge the duty on such waste and scrap. The Tribunal in the case of Preetam Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II 2004 (173) ELT 26 (Tri-Mum) held that job worker being the manufacturer of such scrap (1) he should discharge the duty and not the principal who sent the inputs to him. Following the ratio of this decision I set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal.
-
2005 (10) TMI 527
... ...
... ... ..... arket and recorded on a carrier and subsequently customises that software to that purchaser 39 s specific requirements, even where separate prices are paid 3. Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a single supply such as that referred to in paragraph 2 of this operative part is to be classified as a 39 supply of services 39 where it is apparent that the customisation in question is neither minor nor ancillary but, on the contrary, predominates such is the case in particular where in the light of factors such as its extent, cost or duration the customisation is of decisive importance in enabling the purchaser to use the customised software 4. Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a single supply of services such as that referred to in paragraph 3 of this operative part performed for a taxable person established in the Community but not in the same country as the supplier.
-
2005 (10) TMI 526
... ...
... ... ..... the Commissioner has rendered the ruling, petitioner it appears has got wise and he is now seeking to bring it to the notice of the Commissioner regarding the applicability of Government notification for the purpose of claiming this benefit. It is open to the petitioner to seek for another ruling, if so advised, in the context of Government notification the benefit of which notification the petitioner seeks on the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Commissioner is right in rejecting the application seeking review of his ruling, which was filed under rule 27(Q) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. It is open to the petitioner to work out his rights as and when the occasion arises and claim such benefits. Such grounds do not compel me to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any merit for exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 525
... ...
... ... ..... as committed illegality in allowing the appeal without taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and, as such the order of the Tribunal is perverse. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon rule 4(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1957 in support of his submission that the dealer-opposite party has failed to maintain the books of account in respect of the disputed transaction as prescribed therein. In view of the fact that the order of remand was passed by the first appellate authority, the said plea shall also be taken into account by the assessing authority while reframing the assessment order after remand. In the result both the revisions are hereby allowed. The order of the Tribunal under revision is set aside and the Second Appeal Nos. 201 of 1995 and 200 of 1995 filed before the Tribunal stand dismissed and the order of the first appellate authority is restored back. There will be however, no order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 524
... ...
... ... ..... , to claim exemption under this entry, cotton handkerchiefs that the appellant is dealing in, must be a commodity as described in the Additional Duties of Excise Act, which in turn primarily adopts the entries made in Central Excise Tariff Act. As we have already noticed, the First Schedule to the Additional Duties of Excise Act would not include Chapter 62 of the Act, which provides for an inclusive definition. In view of this legal position, we are of the view that the learned single Judge is justified in holding that in view of the amendment to entry 8-A of the Fifth Schedule to the Act, the sale of man-made or mill-made handkerchiefs is not exempt from payment of sales tax under the KST Act. Therefore, we concur with the findings and the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge. In the result, appeal requires to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (10) TMI 523
... ...
... ... ..... ers, though they have filed objections stating that both the provisos of the notification issued under G.O. Ms. No. 496, dated July 17, 2001 have no application and the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to assess sellers for the commercial tax is concerned, even if the buyers have played some mischief, none of those objections were considered by the authority. Therefore, the impugned orders therein are also liable to be set aside and accordingly, are set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing authority for consideration of the objections raised by these petitioners along with any other legal aspects that may be raised by them. The authorities are directed to dispose of all the matters, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after issuing due notice and opportunity of personal hearing, if necessary, to the petitioners, as stated supra. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 522
... ...
... ... ..... tax at the rate of 2 per cent. This levy is set aside by the first appellate authority, taking the view sewing machines are not industrial machinery, without noticing the notification issued by the State Government dated September 23, 1998 retrospectively, i.e., with effect from April 1, 1994 up to January 6, 1998 but by merely relying on the view expressed by this court in Mysore Sales Corporation 39 s case 1992 84 STC 461. The revisional authority after noticing the notification issued by the State Government retrospectively which provides for levy of entry tax on machinery (all kinds), in our view, has rightly come to the conclusion that the order passed by the first appellate authority is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the revisional authority. Accordingly, revision petition requires to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (10) TMI 521
... ...
... ... ..... n the notification and, in fact, it is a beneficial notification for the benefit of persons like the petitioners and cannot be characterised as bad in law that a notification issued under the KST Act cannot come to the benefit of the petitioners for seeking exemption under the provisions of the CST Act. Petitions are wholly misconceived. No one has a right to seek an exemption from the levy of tax. An exemption from the liability for payment of tax under the KST Act is confined to only such items and period and not beyond. A notification under section 8-A of the KST Act cannot be construed or interpreted in such a manner to include the liability under the CST Act also. As to what consequence follows in the CST Act because of the exemption granted is a question that can be agitated independently by the petitioners in the appropriate proceedings and cannot be examined in these writ petitions. There is absolutely no merit in these petitions. Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 520
... ...
... ... ..... because of any contribution either by the Tribunal or by the respondents, there is no occasion for this court to pass any order either contrary to such statutory provisions or which can in any way detract from the statutory provisions. Any order contrary will, in fact, achieve quite the opposite to what the law intended to achieve through the amendments to the existing law and by inserting such provisions of law which have brought about the present situation. In such circumstances, I do not find it proper to pass any order either main or interim, which can in any way detract from the efficacy of the statutory provisions. Likewise, I do not find any occasion to issue mandamus to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal as the position before the Tribunal is not known, particularly with regard to the number of cases pending, what is the present position, etc. No occasion arises for issuing any writ in the nature of mandamus as prayed for. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 519
... ...
... ... ..... nch of this court held that the contention of the department that since there was an exemption notification there is no liability and hence on the application of the proviso the assessee will be disentitled to the concessional rate of tax thereby justifying the differential rate of tax, was negatived. It was held that under section 5(3)(ii) of the Act, the differential tax can be levied only when the raw materials purchased, availing the concessional rate were not used for the purpose for which the declaration was furnished. In the absence of any case that the raw materials were not used for the purpose for which the declaration was furnished, he will not be disentitled to claim the benefit of the concessional rate of tax under section 5(3) of the Act. Thus, both the points are covered by the above two decisions of this court. Accordingly, exhibits P1 and P2 are quashed. The original petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 2170 of 2000 in O.P. No. 1362 of 2000(K) dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 518
... ...
... ... ..... considered without requiring any argument and investigation. It is settled principle of law that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal and argued at the time of hearing of the appeal. In my opinion, if such ground has not been dealt with in the order, it amounts to apparent mistake. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in the cases of Amarnath Shital Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1993 UPTC 60, and Kuldip Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1999 STI 524 (All), in which a similar view has been taken. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is directed to decide ground No. 37 of the grounds of appeal after hearing both the parties. In the result, revision is allowed. Order dated August 11, 2005 is set aside. Application under section 22 of the Act is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the ground No. 37 of the grounds of appeal afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.
-
2005 (10) TMI 517
... ...
... ... ..... land in Survey Nos. 146, 149, 150 and 151 situated at Pala Kothapalli Village, Kotavuratla Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, belonging to the third respondent, who purchased the said property under the registered sale deed, dated October 12, 2000. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had acquired the said property with his personal earnings, therefore it is the self-acquired property of the third respondent. But, the first respondent treating the said property as the property belonging to the father of the third respondent, who is said to be a defaulter, addressed the impugned letter to the second respondent not to register the property in question and also not to release the document. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. After the repeated adjournments, a counter has been filed by the first respondent stating that the property in question was purchased by the third respondent with the earnings of his father, who is stated to be a
-
2005 (10) TMI 516
... ...
... ... ..... to receive the C forms. However, in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the dealer did not produce any such C forms, about which we do not propose to express any opinion though the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to produce evidence in support of the plea that C forms have been produced by the dealer before the authority. It shall be open to the dealer to produce the C forms even now before the assessing authority and the same shall be received, provided sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner for the belated filing of the C forms. The petitioner is accordingly directed to produce the C forms within a period of three weeks from today, which shall be received by the authority for its consideration to decide as to whether the petitioner had shown any sufficient cause for the belated filing of the C forms and appropriate further orders shall be passed in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 515
... ...
... ... ..... f it being violative of article 14 that it creates an invidious classification is also, while not made good, not tenable inasmuch as no such classification has even been attempted under the impugned notification and the notification being bad on the ground of being violative of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is yet again a futile argument, as there is nothing to indicate that the notification has the effect of coming in the way of the petitioner carrying on its business activity. The levy of tax in accordance with law cannot by itself be characterised as a provision violative of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In the result, the challenge to the notification fails and the writ petition has to be dismissed. The challenge to the notification having failed, there is no question of the consequential relief of quashing the assessment order and the demand notice pursuant to the assessment order. This prayer is also rejected. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
2005 (10) TMI 514
... ...
... ... ..... t LJ in Customs and Excise Comrs v. Wellington Private Hospital Ltd. 1997 STC 445, 449. But Mr Sherry (for the college) disavowed any reliance on item 4 of Group 6 and in the circumstances it is unnecessary to go into the complications of Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom (Case 353/85) 1988 ECR 817 as explained by Millett LJ in the Wellington case. I think Mr Sherry was right to disavow reliance on item 4, as it would most probably have proved a longer way round to the same dead end. 38 For these reasons I would allow the appeal and restore the decision of the tribunal. LORD CARSWELL 39 My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. I agree with his reasons and conclusions, and I too would allow the appeal. Appeal allowed with costs in Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Orders of Lightman J restored. Solicitors Solicitor, HM Revenue and Customs Thomas Eggar.
........
|
