|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 645 Records
-
2007 (5) TMI 593 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was a quota of 50:50 for the promotees and direct appointees and whether the direct appointees had exceeded their quota on the day of their appointment?
Whether the year in which the vacancy accrues can have any relevance for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of the fact when the persons are recruited?
-
2007 (5) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT
Whether both the tractor and the trolley were insured or not?
Whether the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realize the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act?
-
2007 (5) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 constitunially valid?
Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the 2003 Act should be read in such a manner so as to make it in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
-
2007 (5) TMI 590 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the exonerated officer in the department proceeding also faced same charges including the charge of being a party to the larger conspiracy?
Held that:- Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter to the Special Judge, for consideration of the matter afresh, but as the prosecution has already started examination of witnesses and as we have been assured by the learned Additional Solicitor General that all endeavours would be made for early disposal of the matter, we may not exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at this point of time. We, however, keeping in view the fact that a large number of officers of the Union of India are involved and as it is stated at the bar that they have not been promoted because of the pendency of this case, would request the learned Special Judge to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
-
2007 (5) TMI 589 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. reported in 1983 53 STC 54 1983 UPTC 198. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to argue that once there was violation of section 28A of the Act, the penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act was to be automatically levied and therefore the order of the assessing officer ought to be maintained. Having considered the submission and having perused the judgments of the appellate authority and the Tribunal, I do not find any infirmity in the same as it was not disputed by the Department that the goods seized were the raw material of the dealer to be used in manufacturing of tin boxes and form XXXI had been left by the driver by mistake at the office of the transporter. Merely absence of form XXXV would not mean that there was any intention to evade tax and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal based on the Division Bench decision of this court appears to be justified. No question of law arises. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 588 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... revisional jurisdiction without any restriction as regards the disposal of the same, wants to put restriction on its power and jurisdiction as regards its direction for fresh rectification. If this is allowed, same will lead to a manifestly absurd situation, which of course, will suit the purpose of the petitioner. As observed above, such restrictive construction will be antithesis to the very purpose of revisional authority and jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned judgment and order dated June 4, 2002 has given sound reasons for not interfering with the revisional order. It has dealt with the matter considering the materials on record. Even otherwise also, in view of the findings recorded above, the Tribunal 39 s judgment and order needs no interference and accordingly, the same is upheld. In view of the above, both the revisional and appellate orders are upheld. The writ petition is meritless and accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (5) TMI 587 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e purpose of the assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964? It is an admitted position that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Peirce Leslile and Co. Ltd. 1997 (Mad) (1997) 227 ITR 761 question is required to be answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The amount in dispute is not to be included in the capital base for the purposes of assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (5) TMI 586 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here is an order that the appropriate order will be passed in regular assessment proceedings in accordance with the order which may be passed in provisional assessment. In view of the reasons mentioned above, this argument of learned counsel for the Revenue deserves to be rejected on the ground that the law cannot be interpreted because of the reason of hardship which may be caused to the authority by any order which was contrary to law. In the cases of Shreechand 1996 100 STC 53 (Raj) and P.G. Fiiles Limited 2000 120 STC 203 (Raj) as well as Division Bench judgment in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal 2001 124 STC 298 (Raj) 25 Tax World 81, almost similar situations were there except for mentioning in the order of regular assessment that regular assessment will be subject to decision in the provisional assessment. In view of the above reasons,. I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 585 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6 43 STR 217. 3.. Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Satya Narain Amit Kumar 2006 UPTC 109. So far as the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of National Carbon Co. 1969 23 STC 388 is concerned, it has been noticed in the aforesaid judgments and have been distinguished and it has been held that the said full Bench judgment was given in the special facts and circumstances of that case. In the absence of any custom certificate evidencing that the goods were exported outside India and keeping in view the fact that the delivery was effected within the State of U.P., as also in view of the cases referred above, it is difficult to hold such sales are sales in the course of export sales. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal cannot legally be sustained. The revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal under revision is set aside and the second appeal filed by the dealer-opposite party before the Trade Tax Tribunal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (5) TMI 584 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... course of assessment proceeding as per rule and in case of non-furnishing of form during the assessment proceeding tax is levied at the normal rate whether, interest under section 8(1) can be demanded from the due date of the return in which turnover was disclosed and exemption/concession has been claimed and tax at the normal rate has not been paid or from the date of assessment order or under section 8(1B) in case of non-payment even after the assessment order. (b) Whether in case of non-furnishing of requisite form by the time of assessment proceeding, the tax assessed at a normal rate can be said to be tax admittedly payable under section 8(1) of the Act. (c) Whether there is any scope for the consideration of legitimate expectation or hope or bona fide belief under section 8(1) of the Act and what is the stage of determination of liability of tax whether return or assessment. Let the file be placed before the honourable Chief Justice for the Constitution of Full Bench.
-
2007 (5) TMI 583 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the fact that the State did not make any endeavour to crosscheck what was urged by the petitioner in its reply dated March 28, 2000 to the notice received by it under section 17(2) of the Act. Instead of proceeding in the manner as was required by verifying the facts urged by the petitioner, the State had proceeded to make the assessment merely by claiming a power to levy tax on the deemed sale of goods involved in the execution of the works contract. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be allowed and the impugned assessment order and the notice of demand dated May 29, 2000 have to be set aside, which I hereby do. The contentions of the petitioner as urged in its reply dated March 28, 2000 will now have to be verified by the authority and thereafter the matter has to be dealt with in accordance with what has been observed and held in the present order. The writ petition, consequently, is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
-
2007 (5) TMI 582 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... s for levy of tax at different rates. The State Legislature in West Bengal in its wisdom has thought it fit to treat vegetable oil not used as edible oil in the State as a separate class and tax it at a higher rate. As there is an intelligible basis for such separation, we do not think that exclusion of coconut oil from the entry vegetable oil can be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. We, in the circumstances, hold that there has not been any discrimination between the commodities as has been raised by the petitioner. We, therefore, observe as below I. Coconut oil is not an edible oil in West Bengal. II. Coconut oil is a vegetable oil and would fall within entry 88 of Schedule C to the VAT Act for the period from April 1, 2005 to January 31, 2006. III. Impugned Notification No. 172 FT dated February 1, 2006 is not discriminatory and is legally valid. Both the petitions are, thus, disposed of by this common order. No order as to costs. PRADIPTA RAY (Chairman). - I agree.
-
2007 (5) TMI 581 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... uch the act of seizure is liable to be quashed. The act of seizure being quashed, the penalty proceeding fails. So the impugned order confirming the impugned penalty order with the modification be reversed, i.e., the penalty order should be set aside and the penalty money if deposited be refunded. In the result the application succeeds. Hence, it is ordered that the application is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned seizure under the Case No. 31/DCP/05-06 dated May 3, 2005 being illegal is quashed. The impugned order dated May 12, 2005 passed in RVN (B)-06/05-06 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Asansol Circle, is reversed and the penalty order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Duburdih check-post, in the aforesaid seizure case stands set aside. The sum deposited by the applicant towards penalty shall be refunded within two months hereof. In default the sum shall carry interest at 10 per cent per annum. DIPAK CHAKRABORTI (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2007 (5) TMI 580 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tively involved in carrying on the business. Therefore on account of illness of sole working partner the delay in filing the appeal appears to be sufficiently explained. Further there is no counter-affidavit to controvert the said averments. It is not the case of the department that the dealer had not disclosed the fact that there were other partners. The explanation in the circumstances ought to have been accepted. In the circumstances, relying upon the decision referred to above, there does arise a question of law, i.e., the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the appellate authority rejecting the delay-condonation application. Revisions are, accordingly, allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal and the appellate authority on March 26, 2004 and March 16, 2002 respectively are hereby set side and the matter is remanded to the first appellate authority to decide the appeals of the dealer on merits.
-
2007 (5) TMI 579 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n though reduced). The only reason given by the two authorities below regarding illegal import and sale of iron was the proximity of the other States. The Tribunal relying upon the decision in the case of Kishori Lal Agarwal v. Commissioner, Trade Tax reported in 1999 UPTC 87 held that only on the ground of proximity of the other States assumption of illegal import and sale of iron cannot be accepted. It accordingly accepted the returns filed by the dealer and deleted the tax liability completely. In my opinion, the Tribunal has given sound reasons in holding that the dealer was not liable to pay tax and account books and returns were accepted. Nothing adverse has been furnished by the Department to show that the order of the Tribunal was bad in law. In my opinion the order of the Tribunal is based on material evidence on record and on the legal pronouncements and therefore it does not suffer from any illegality. No question of law arises. Revision is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 578 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the same effect is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Super Tank India 2004 UPTC 711. A Division Bench of this court in Vikrant Tyers Limited v. State of U.P. 2006 148 STC 122 2005 UPTC 501 has held that the words parts, accessories and attachments thereof used in the notification under section 4 with respect to the agricultural implements indicate in unambiguous terms that even a part of cart used as an agricultural implement is extended the exemption. It was held that wheels are essential parts of a cart and a prominent feature and a cart without wheels cannot be imagined. If cart is in the category of agricultural implements then wheels will also fall therein. It was held that pneumatic tyres is exempted from payment of tax and is covered under the notification dealing with the agricultural implements as parts and accessories of carts. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only).
-
2007 (5) TMI 577 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal the dealer submitted declaration in form C on the ground that it was not available with it at the time of assessment order and sufficient opportunity had not been given to it, the application under section 12B of the Act ought to have been accepted, as the law does not permit unnecessary taxation and permits taxation only in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the discussion made above, the dismissal of the appeal to this limited extent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The order dated May 19, 2006 passed by the Tribunal confirming the rejection of application under section 12B of the Act is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders taking into consideration the effect of 12 form C subject to verification in accordance with law. Rest of the findings of the Tribunal remain intact. Revision application is allowed as above. There shall however be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (5) TMI 576 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... remains that the applicant purchased the paddy at concessional rate of tax or without payment of tax, being a recognition certificate holder. He was under a legal obligation to utilise the said paddy for the manufacture of the notified item, namely, rice, in the present case. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. B.S. Industries 2004 25 NTN 812, this court has held that on a plain reading of sub-section (5) of section 4B, the intention of the Legislature is clear that raw material purchased for notified goods can be utilised only for the purpose for which the recognition certificate was granted and not otherwise. In Commissioner, Sales Tax U.P. v. Jaiswal Rice Mill, Hata Deoria 2004 25 NTN 1290, it has been held that where a dealer has availed the benefit of exemption on paddy from the farmers and has not paid any tax, there is violation of section 4B(2) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (5) TMI 575 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thereafter cooled and to supplement the pasteurised milk, vitamins A and D is added because the quantity of vitamins A and D is low. Merely because vitamins A and D are added to the milk which is pasteurised, it would not cease to be pasteurised milk. By adding vitamins A and D also to the pasteurised milk, the milk retains all its natural flavours and characteristics. In that view of the matter the authorities under the Act as well as the Tribunal had misdirected itself to come to a conclusion that what is being sold by the assessee is a milk product, not pasteurised milk. In view of the above, the orders passed by the assessing authority and the Tribunal requires to be set aside and a direction requires to be issued to the assessing authority to re-quantify the tax liability of the petitioner treating the Tazza milk sold by the assessee as pasteurised milk which would fall under entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Ordered accordingly.
-
2007 (5) TMI 574 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Tax, U.P., Lucknow 2000 119 STC 404 (All) 2000 UPTC 391. In view of above discussion, the orders of the Tribunal passed in Second Appeal Nos. 1 to 4 to 2007 cannot be sustained and the same are hereby set aside and the aforesaid second appeals filed by the dealer-opposite party before the Tribunal stand dismissed. Before saying omega to the case, it may be noted that due to an earlier order dated October 9, 2006 passed by the Tribunal directing the Joint Commissioner to decide the question of limitation first, has unnecessarily delayed and multiplied the proceedings. In fiscal matter final orders terminating the proceedings finally should be encouraged and not piecemeal proceedings, otherwise it causes a lot of harassment to tax-payers also. The Tribunals in their wisdom should see that the proceedings come to an end finally without any delay. All the revisions are, therefore, allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000 each, in total amounting to Rs. 4,000 (rupees four thousand only).
............
|
