Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1977 Page 8 of about 475 results (0.024 seconds)

Jan 10 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. 16/35 Movie Productions

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-10-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)285

madon, j.1. in this reference under s. 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, made at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax, the following two questions have been referred to us for our determination : '(1) whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that from the turnover of sales of films there should be deducted an amount of rs. 17,125 paid to artists engaged in the making of such films (2) whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the absence of any written contract, the tribunal was justified in holding that the nature of the contract could not be in any manner different from the contracts which were the subject-matters of messrs cine graphic arts vs. the state of bombay and messrs ama advertising films private ltd. vs. the state of maharashtra ?' 2. this reference has had a chequered history. it first reached before us on february 17, 1975. on that day after hearing the reference for some time we found the statement of the case so inadequately drawn up as to leave us totally mystified about the facts of the case which have given rise to this reference. accordingly, in exercise of our powers under s. 61(3) of the said act we referred the case back to the tribunal, directing it to draw up a proper supplemental statement of the case. a supplemental statement of the case has been drawn up and the matter now again comes before us for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. P. Ambalal and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-18-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)382

madon, j. 1. in this reference under s. 34(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, the following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the applicant :- '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of s. 15 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sales tax officer (x), enforcement branch, bombay, could not initiate the proceedings under that section on the ground that the original assessment under s. 14 of the said act was passed by the sales-tax officer, b ward, bombay-2 (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sales tax officer (x). enforcement branch, bombay, does not get valid jurisdiction to pass reassessment order under s. 15 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, in the absence of a valid order transferring the proceedings from the sales tax officer, b ward, bombay ?' 2. the respondents were registered as a dealer under the bombay sales tax act, 1953. since their place of business was situate within the area of the jurisdiction of the sale tax officer, licence circle, ii division, bombay, the respondents were filing their returns with the said sales tax officer and were being assessed by him. the said sales-tax officer thus assessed the respondents for the period april 1, 1957 to march 31, 1958. subsequently, on august 27, 1962 the respondents' place of business and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1977 (HC)

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sultan Shev Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)385

madon, j. 1. this reference under s. 61 (1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under s. 52(1) (e) of the said act. 2. the respondents, who are registered dealers under the said act, sold five kilograms of shevaya (that is, vermicelli) on august 8, 1967 at the rate of rs. 1.25p. per kilogram. by their application dated september 13, 1967 made under the said s. 52 (1) (e) the respondents stated that vermicelli so sold by them was prepared from maida purchased by them from shetkari sahakari sangh ltd. and the said commodity was exempted from tax under schedule a to the said act. after a personal hearing, the respondents also set out their case in writing by their letter dated november 14, 1967 in which they clarified that the exemption they sought was under entry 10 of schedule a to the said act and that in the alternative, they claimed exemption under entry 5 of the said schedule a. the said entry 10 of schedule a, as in force at the relevant time was as follows :- --------------------------------------------------------------------'serial description of goods conditions and exceptionsno. subject to whichexemption is granted--------------------------------------------------------------------10 cereals and pulses in all except when sold in sealedincluding atta, maida, besan containers.'suji and bran prepared therefrom,but excluding maize flour.--------------------------------------------------------------------the commissioner of sales tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Devidayal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-21-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)424; [1978]41STC184(Bom)

madon, j. 1. in this reference under s. (61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, two questions have been referred to us, the first at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax and the second at the instance of the respondents. these two questions are as follows : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned transactions covered by final bill no. b-12/19/imp-e-30 dated 25-2-1964 effected by the respondents with the scheduled units were not sales within the meaning of s. 2(28) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in not allowing the applicant to argue that on the facts of the case the sales were sales protected by article 286 being sales in course of import ?' 2. at the hearing of this reference mr. joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, stated that the respondents did not desire this court to answer the second question, and accordingly at the request of the respondents we are not answering the said question. 3. the facts which have given rise to this reference are that the respondents are established importers of copper. as such established importers the respondents applied for and obtained an import licence may 18,1963 for the importation by them of copper scrap, whether ingoted or otherwise, falling under item 42 of part i of s. ii of the schedule to the import policy statement or what is popularly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1977 (HC)

S.K. Manekla Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-18-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Bom)505; [1977]39STC426(Bom)

madon, j. 1. the applicants in this reference under s. 34(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1953, are a partnership firm carrying on business in crockery, glassware, chinaware, glazedware, earthenware and cutlery. the applicant-firm was registered as a dealer under the bombay sales tax act, 1946, and the bombay sales tax act, 1953. for the assessment period 1st april, 1952, to 31st october, 1952, the applicants were assessed by the sales tax officer, b ward, bombay, on 31st july, 1953. on 13th january, 1956, the applicants office was raided by the sales tax officer (vi), enforcement branch, bombay, and certain books of account were seized. thereafter, on 8th march, 1956, a notice under s. 15 of the bombay sales tax act, 1953 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as 'the 1953 act'), was issued to the applicants by the said sales tax officer, and in pursuance of the said notice the said sales tax officer reopened the assessment of the applicants for the said period 1st april, 1952, to 31st october, 1952, and reassessed them on the ground that they had suppressed certain sales effected by them. against this order of reassessment the applicants filed an appeal to the assistant commissioner of sales tax (appeals iii), bombay, and by his order dated 12th august, 1957, the said assistant commissioner set aside the said order of reassessment on the ground that the said notice under s. 15 served on the applicants was of a period shorter than the one required under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1977 (HC)

Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. the State of Mahar ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-28-1977

Reported in : [1977]40STC1(Bom)

madon, j. 1. these are three references under section 9(2) of the central sales tax act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the central act'), read with section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the bombay act'), which give rise to common questions of law. 2. the applicants were at all material times registered as dealers both under the central act and the bombay act. they carried on the business of bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by them for sale as also bleaching and printing fabrics manufactured by others for sale. for this purpose the applicants used to purchase grey fabrics, dyes, caustic soda and other processing materials. so far as the purchase of these materials from outside-state dealers were concerned, the applicants used to purchase such materials on declarations given by them to their vendors, stating that the goods as purchased were intended for use by them in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. under the provisions of the central act in force when such declarations were given, the rate of tax applicable was 2 per cent. during the course of assessment proceedings for the periods 1st january, 1964, to 31st december, 1964 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the first period'), 1st january, 1965, to 31st december, 1965 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the second period') and 1st january, 1966, to 31st december, 1966 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1977 (HC)

M. Framrose and Company Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-25-1977

Reported in : [1977]40STC36(Bom)

madon, j. 1. in both these references under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, the same question of law has been referred to us, namely : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in concluding that the return of goods values at rs. 86,715 by the applicants to george salter india limited amounted to sales in the course of inter-state trade ?' 2. during the relevant period the applicants were registered as a dealer both under the central sales tax act, 1956, and the bombay sales tax act, 1959, and were acting as distributors for george salter india limited of titaghar in west bengal, a company which manufactured spring balances. during the year 1964-65, the said george salter india limited supplied to the applicants certain spring balances. the applicants in their turn sold these machines to their own customers. some of these customers found the machines sold to them to be defective, and these defective machines were returned by the applicants to the manufacturers, the said george salter india limited. these machines were returned between 21st september, 1966, and 30th december, 1966. the accounting period of the applicants was the calendar year, and at the end of this accounting period for 1966, the applicants made a journal entry debiting the said george salter india limited with the value of the machines so returned and crediting it to the purchase account. the description given in the said journal entry was ' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1977 (HC)

Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-23-1977

Reported in : [1977]40STC488(Bom)

kania, j. 1. these are two references under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'), made at the instance of the applicant-assessees. sales tax reference no. 8 of 1976 pertains to the period 1st january, 1964, to 31st december, 1964, and sales tax reference no. 23 of 1976 pertains to the period 1st january, 1965, to 31st december, 1965. the same questions have been referred to us in these two references and the material facts are the same. both these references have been made by a common order and on a common statement of facts. in these circumstances, were are disposing of the said references by a common judgment. 2. the assessees are a private limited company and are manufacturers of glass bottles. the assessees are dealers registered under the said act. in february, 1960, the public relations officer of the sales tax department issued a bulletin wherein it was stated that empty glass bottles would be covered by entry 22 of schedule e to the said act, the said entry being the residuary entry. the commissioner of sales tax, by his determination order dated 20th august, 1963, in a proceeding under section 52 of the said act taken out by some other dealer, also held that glass bottles were covered by entry 22 of schedule e to the said act. under the impression that this was the correct position in law, the assessees, who were selling glass bottles at a rate below re. 1 per bottle, collected sales tax at 3 per cent and general .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1977 (HC)

Maniar and Sons Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-29-1977

Reported in : (1978)7CTR(Bom)19; [1977]40STC562(Bom)

madon, j. 1. this is a reference under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, made at the instance of the assessees, who are a partnership firm and were registered as a dealer under the said act and also held a licence under section 23 of the said act, in respect of the assessment period 3rd november, 1965, to 31st march, 1966. 2. the facts material for the purposes of deciding this reference are that during the said assessment period the applicants purchased plastic bangles of the value of rs. 2,89,990 from aurobrite (india) private limited. in respect of the bangles so purchased by them aurobrite (india) private limited issued to the applicants invoices in which at the end there appear the words : 'g.s. tax - | included.' sales tax - 3. the amount of such tax included in the invoices was not separately shown. during the assessment period the applicants resold the bangles so purchased by them for a total price of rs. 3,92,208. out of these sales, sales of the value of rs. 50,000 were effected to the registered dealers who held recognition granted by the commissioner of sales tax and against declarations in form 15 to the bombay sales tax rules, 1959, given by such purchasers. in respect of the remaining sales of the aggregate value of rs. 3,42,208, the applicants claimed a deduction as resales under section 10(2)(i) of the said act. this claim of the applicants was rejected. according to the applicants, they had paid a sum of rs. 8,693.88 by way of sales tax and rs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1977 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sultan Shev Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1977

Reported in : [1977]40STC583(Bom)

madon, j. 1. this reference under section 61(1) of the bombay sales tax act, 1959, arises out of determination proceedings under section 52(1)(e) of the said act. 2. the respondents, who are registered dealers under the said act, sold five kilograms of shevaya (that is, vermicelli) on 8th august, 1967, at the rate of re. 1.25 per kilogram. by their application dated 13th september, 1967, made under the said section 52(1)(e), the respondents stated that vermicelli so sold by them was prepared from maida purchased by them from shetkari sahakari sangh ltd. and the said commodity was exempted from tax under schedule a to the said act. after a personal hearing, the respondents also set out their case in writing by their letter dated 14th november, 1967, in which they clarified that the exemption they sought was under entry 10 of schedule a to the said act and that, in the alternative, they claimed exemption under entry 5 of the said schedule a. the said entry 10 of schedule a, as in force at the relevant time, was as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 'serial no. description of goods condition and exemptions subject to which exemptionis granted------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. cereals and pulses in all except when sold in sealed atta, maida, besan, sujiforms and flour including and bran prepared therefrom,but excluding maize flour. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //