|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 546 Records
-
2006 (12) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the evidence of this particular case it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant, and he must be given the benefit of reasonable doubt?
-
2006 (12) TMI 479 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court, execution petition could be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, as prayed for by the decree-holder?
Held that:- The literal rule of interpretation is not only followed by Judges and lawyers, but it is also followed by the lay man in his ordinary life. To give an illustration, if a person says "this is a pencil", then he means that it is a pencil; and it is not that when he says that the object is a pencil, he means that it is a horse, donkey or an elephant. In other words, the literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. If we do not follow the literal rule of interpretation, social life will become impossible, and we will not understand each other. If we say that a certain object is a book, then we mean it is a book. If we say it is a book, but we mean it is a horse, table or an elephant, then we will not be able to communicate with each other. Life will become impossible. Hence, the meaning of the literal rule of interpretation is simply that we mean what we say and we say what we mean.
In the present case, we are clearly of the opinion that the literal rule applies, and the other rules have no application to interpreting Section 31, since the language of Section 31 is plain and clear, and cannot be said to be ambiguous or resulting in some absurdity.
In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the recovery in question is time-barred and it is hereby quashed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 478 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion in the statute, such opportunity need be given, to make the action taken or order passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice, unless, of course, the statute specifically excludes the applicability of principle of natural justice, such an opportunity deemed to be inbuilt in the provision. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Manaktala Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2007 5 VST 284 2006 UPTC 1128. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated August 11, 1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed. However, it will be open for the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioners. Under the circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 477 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under the Central Act. Merely because after issuance of form C, dealer has furnished detail of the purchases it does not lead to the conclusion, there was bona fide. Bona fide has to be considered at the time of the purchases and issue of form C and not by the subsequent act of the dealer. No explanation has been furnished that why the form C was issued when the dealer was not registered for the aforesaid items under the Central Act. In this view of the matter, it is a case where while issuing form C, dealer had falsely represented that it was registered and issued form C. Dealer is, accordingly, liable for penalty under section 10A of the Central Act. Since the Tribunal has not considered about the quantum of penalty, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to adjudicate the quantum of penalty. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue relating to the penalty afresh.
-
2006 (12) TMI 476 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ning inside. As already stated, though containers generally understood are made of solid material, the same does not mean that in all cases packing materials should be solid materials. Packing material is a relative concept and as and when an item is used to pack another thing, it is a packing material and packing cover is certainly a packing material. It is worthwhile to make a reference to section 5(3) of the KGST Act, which provides for concessional rate on containers or packing materials, etc., wherein, under the Explanation, container includes even gunny bags. In such circumstances, we feel, all food preparations sold in air-tight packings, whatever be the material used for packing, would fall within the description of food including vegetative or animal preparation sold in air-tight containers. We therefore uphold the finding of the Tribunal and hold that petitioner 39 s product falls under entry 56 at the relevant time and consequently dismiss the sales tax revisions.
-
2006 (12) TMI 475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... paddy with the amount of tax payable on the rice. Liability of tax on the paddy was on the dealer being the first purchaser of the paddy. There is no provision for the refund of the amount of tax paid on the paddy. The provisions of section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides adjustment of the amount of tax paid on the paddy with the amount of tax payable on the turnover of rice. After the adjustment of the amount of tax paid on the paddy at Rs. 3,50,070 the amount of tax payable on the sale of rice to RFC comes to Rs. 2,44,444.72. Since the applicant has realised a sum of Rs. 4,44,844.40 from RFC, the balance amount of Rs. 2,20,399.68 was not refundable to the applicant in view of section 29(2) of the Act. It is only refundable to RFC under section 29(3) of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the order of the assessing authority refusing to allow the refund of Rs. 2,20,399.68 to the applicant. In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 474 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... iron castings. Once it is held that the manufactured item was different from the raw materials, the company cannot get the benefit of section 14 of the CST Act, 1956. The company however is entitled to set-off as provided by section 22(2) of the Act of 1994. It is not clear to us why the company did not press its claim for set-off. The assessing officer will now deal with the petitioner 39 s claim for set-off afresh and determine the set-off amount. For the foregoing reasons the impugned orders of the Administrative Member of the Board, the appellate authority and the assessing authority are set aside to the extent indicated above. The assessing officer will now consider the amount of set-off as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to the company 39 s authorised representative. Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. DIPAK CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree. SAIKH ABDUL MOTALEB (Judicial Member). - I agree.
-
2006 (12) TMI 473 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ar would stand up against the demand of service tax raised in the impugned order inasmuch as, admittedly, the appellants did not come within the purview of non-banking financial company . The argument put forward with reference to equipment is also appealing. It is also an admitted fact that sales tax was paid on the rental charges collected by the appellants from their distributors. It would appear from the Supreme Court 39 s ruling in BSNL 39 s case 2006 3 VST 95 2006 145 STC 91 2006 282 ITR 273 2006 6 RC 276 2006 TIOL 15 SC-CT-LB. that anything on which sales tax is paid is goods and, therefore, service tax cannot be levied thereon, though Central excise duty may be leviable, if the goods are found to be excisable and dutiable. For the reasons we have noted above, the appellants are not required to make any pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts of tax and penalties.
-
2006 (12) TMI 472 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ity when the item purchased has not been subjected to any tax until it 39 s purchase and the item ceases to exist after it 39 s use by purchasing dealer. Assessees case itself is that suppliers are unregistered dealers and red oil purchased by them has not suffered any tax and after red oil is used by them in the production of sandalwood oil, it ceases to exist. Therefore, if purchase tax is not levied at the hands of the assessees, the same will frustrate and defeat the purpose of section 5A of the Act. We do not know on what basis the Tribunal has assumed that in order to attract liability under section 5A manufacture of a product should be done with the use of chemicals. We are constrained to observe that the finding of the Tribunal is patently absurd and perverse. We therefore allow the tax revision cases, reversing the orders of the Tribunal, upholding levy of tax under section 5A of the Act on the purchase turnover of red oil by respondents-assessees for all the years.
-
2006 (12) TMI 471 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Tamil Nadu 1982 51 STC 278 ((Mad)). We do not refer to those decisions because we are in agreement with the proposition that if a sale is made by a dealer after closure of his business, then the same will not be exigible to tax under the Act . . . In view of the settled legal position emerging from the above-quoted division Bench judgment of this court, the court is of the opinion that the opponent was not a dealer qua the sale of the entire business occasioned as a result of discontinuance of business and that the sale of the entire mill by the opponent to Shree Keshariya Investment Limited did not amount to sale of goods as defined in section 2(12) of the Act, effected during the course of the opponent 39 s business and therefore, the sale proceeds were not liable to any tax. For the reasons stated above, this court answers the questions referred to the court in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 470 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be pointed out that in ITC Ltd. v. State of Assam decided on November 17, 2006 2007 9 VST 250, this court has held that so far as levy of entry tax, under the AET Act, 2001, on goods other than those in respect whereof President 39 s sanction under proviso to article 304(b) was obtained, is violative of article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and, hence, ultra vires. These goods on which entry tax is payable include cement. Hence, if cement is imported into any local area of the State from another local area or from outside the State, entry tax is leviable on such import of cement if the import is for consumption, use or sale. Logically, therefore, if the cement, so imported, is used in execution of works contract, entry tax would be payable however, if entry tax is paid, the importer, in such a case, would not be liable to pay, as held above, local sales tax. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 469 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay application - recovery of demand of service tax - tour operators service - Penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- As per the clarification issued by CBEC, the tax till then had not applied to package tours, which involved transport by road alone. The revised definition made the tax applicable as regards package tours organised also with vehicles other than tourist vehicles. A perusal of the definition and clarification does not appear to bring the activity of the appellants under the coverage of tour operator service. Transport of employees from different places to a common destination like a place of work, such as a factory in the instant case and bringing them back on a daily basis does not appear to be planned, scheduled, organised arrangement of tours using the buses of the appellants. The appellants have therefore made out a prima facie case against the demand and penalties imposed on them.
Accordingly, there will be complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the dues and penalties affirmed in the impugned order till final disposal of the appeal.
-
2006 (12) TMI 468 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not subordinate to respondent No. 2 and is not bound by annexures P1 to P4. However, they may be taken into consideration at the time of levying tax and imposing interest and/or penalty. As regards challenge to the order dated October 29, 2001 contained in annexure P8, it is observed that it is not an order of assessment. On the contrary, the objection of the petitioners has been rejected by this order finding further petitioner No.1 to be liable to sales tax. In view of the findings of this court stated hereinabove, a challenge to annexure P8 is also not found acceptable and the prayer to this extent is rejected. Since the petitioner has already been held to be a dealer, no immunity from sales tax/commercial tax can be accorded at this juncture. However, in case of assessment of tax and further in case of any grievance, the petitioners may very well raise other objections while pursuing the remedy against the assessment order. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
-
2006 (12) TMI 467 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gs Provided that nothing in this section shall impair the rights of a transferee in good faith and for consideration. In the present case, undisputedly the property belonging to the firm was transferred by respondent No. 4 during the pendency of proceedings against the firm. The effect thereof has to be considered and dealt with by the official respondents for recovery of the dues of the firm. However, the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for respondent No. 4 to the effect that transferees of the property of the firm, not being a party in the present petition, would require hearing before any action is taken against them carries weight. Accordingly, while quashing the impugned notice annexure P 10, we remit the case back to the authorities to proceed for recovery of the amount due in accordance with law after hearing persons concerned and dealing with the objections raised. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above with no order as to cost.
-
2006 (12) TMI 466 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Statute, such opportunity need be given, to make the action taken or order passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice, unless, of course, the statute specifically excludes the applicability of principle of natural justice, such an opportunity is deemed to be inbuilt in the provision. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Manaktala Chemicals Pvt. Limited 2007 5 VST 284 2006 UPTC 1128. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated February 20, 1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, is hereby quashed. However, it will be open for the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioners. Under the circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 465 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Rules, we find that a dealer has a right to change his option on two contingencies, firstly, when the rate of lumpsum is revised and secondly, when the rate of tax on the commodity, in which the dealer deals in, is revised. The words used in the Rules have to be given their plain meaning. If that be so, there is no condition that the revision of rate should prejudice the dealer only then he is permitted to change his option. In view of above, we allow this petition, quash the impugned order (annexure P4) and direct that the petitioner will be entitled to opt out of the lumpsum payment scheme once there is a change in the rate of tax on the commodity. However, to avoid any possible difficulties in implementation of the order, keeping in view different schemes of taxation, we direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of change in option from the next quarter commencing from January 1, 2007. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
-
2006 (12) TMI 464 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecame academic. In this view of the matter, the refusal on the part of the Tribunal to refer question Nos. 1 and 2 relating to the applicability of the second limb of section 5(2) of the Central Act as well as the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act to the transactions in question cannot be faulted. Similarly, question No. 4 being consequential, the said question has not been referred. However, we expressly make it clear that we have declined to refer question Nos. 1 and 2 because in the facts of the present case the said question are academic in nature and it will be open to the department to agitate those questions in any appropriate case before the appropriate forum. In the result, we hold that the decisions of the Tribunal in the present case are based on facts and, therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the reference applications filed by Commissioner cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we dismiss both the reference applications with no order as to costs.
-
2006 (12) TMI 463 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... writ petition is that the impugned orders have been passed without notice to the petitioner, in violation of the procedure prescribed under section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, as soon as he received notice he has taken steps under section 22 of the Act and hence he is not liable to be visited with any penalty. Since appreciation of facts is also involved in the case it is only appropriate that the statutory authority considers the revision petitions. Accordingly we direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of exhibits P14 to P24 revision petitions expeditiously, with notice and opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. Pending disposal of the revision petitions, the second respondent shall consider and pass orders on exhibits P25 to P35 stay petitions within one month from today. Till such time, the recovery steps pursuant to exhibit P36 demand notice will be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2006 (12) TMI 462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pite the fact that the production of the existing unit and diversified unit are totally different and the existing unit was subsequently sold to a third party, viz., M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. is answered accordingly (c) consequently, the Government is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter of Hindustan Motors Limited (i) giving the benefit of waiver of sales tax scheme treating the Lancer car unit as a new unit of Hindustan Motors Limited, in the light of the finding rendered above and (ii) refunding the deposits made by Hindustan Motors Limited, pursuant to the interim orders of this court in the above writ petitions, after appropriating the dues, as per law, if any, payable by M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited as on date, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and (c) with the directions issued above the writ petitions are ordered setting aside the order of the Taxation Special Tribunal impugned in the writ petitions.
-
2006 (12) TMI 461 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... which service tax return had not been filed before the date on which section 71A came into force by recipients of GTO service and C and F Agents 39 service for the aforesaid period were considered by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India 2005 1 VST 1 2005 274 ITR 194 2005 4 RC 508 2005 182 ELT 33 and the assessees, who had not paid service tax for the said period within the time-limit prescribed under section 71A ibid were given a final chance to pay up the tax dues within an extended period. Their Lordships also made it clear that such assesses paying tax within the time granted by the court would not be liable to pay interest or penalty. This benefit is certainly available to the appellants in the present appeal inasmuch as they had filed return and paid tax for the above period within the time prescribed in the statute itself. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
............
|
