Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Assistant Commercial Tax Officer ... vs N.N. Jariwala on 21 October, 1991

S.V. Bagi vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 1992

7. Our attention was drawn by Mr. S. P. Bhat, learned counsel for the assessee in the first revision petition (S.T.R.P. No. 17 of 1987), to the recent judgment of a Division Bench in Assistant Commercial Tax Officer v. N. N. Jariwala . This was a case where a writ petition was filed to impugn an order made under section 31. It was contended that the assessee was estopped from presenting a writ petition on the ground of acquiescence. The Division Bench observed that if the amount of the compounding fee which was demanded by the sales tax authorities had been within the maximum amount prescribed under section 31 there would have been considerable force in their contention that the assessee, having agreed to the compounding of the offence on payment of the amount within the maximum limits prescribed by law and having avoided prosecution, could not subsequently turn around and contend that the amount collected was excessive. But, in the opinion of the Division Bench, that consideration would not apply to a case where, either on account of misconstruction of the provisions of the Act or for any other reason, the sales tax authorities had demanded an amount which was beyond the maximum prescribed and, on account of ignorance or for any other reason, the assessee had agreed to pay or had paid it to avoid prosecution. In such a case the assessee had the right to contend that the amount that was demanded was not authorised by law and he could not be precluded from challenging the action of the sales tax authorities merely because he had agreed to pay the amount and have the offence compounded.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sha Hirachand Dungarchand And Co. vs The Asst. Commn. Of Commr. Taxes on 26 May, 1998

With great respect, it has to be held that the above said principle will apply to the facts of the instant case as well. Therefore, I am of the view, that as the decision relied on by the learned Government Pleader in W.P.No. 29546/96 was mainly decided on the conduct of the petitioner in moving this Court belatedly, that principles therein will not apply to the facts of this case. As such following the said decision I allow this Writ Petition. The excess amount of Rs. 24,000/ - collected from the petitioner as composition fee will be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the said direction. There will be no order as to costs.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Cochin Blue Metal Industries (P) ... vs The Intelligence Officer on 29 April, 2013

6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Srikumar for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel would vehemently canvass for the proposition that, in the instant case, the compounding W.P.(C).No.18120 of 2015 7 proposal put forth on behalf of the petitioner, subject to certain stipulations, had been accepted by the 1st respondent and accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to reap the benefits that flowed from a declaration, of the legal position with regard to liability for penalty, in the judgment dated 06.03.2015 rendered in WP (C) No. 2873/2014 and connected cases. In the alternative, he would submit that the offence itself was not compounded in the absence of payment of the balance tax amounts by the petitioner. To substantiate his contentions, he would place reliance on the decisions in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 328], Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence) v. N.N.Jariwala [1992 (86) VST 229 (Kar)] and State of Karnataka v. Veerchand [1992 (87) VST 138 (Kar-FB)]. It is also contended that, even if it is assumed that the offence was compounded in terms of S.74 of the KVAT Act, in as much as it was not in dispute that the provisions of the proviso to S. 74 (1)(a) was attracted in the instant case, the maximum compounding fee that could have been collected from the petitioner in terms of the statute was only Rs. 2 Lakhs.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Cochin Blue Metal Industries (P) ... vs The Intelligence Officer on 29 April, 2013

6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Srikumar for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel would vehemently canvass for the proposition that, in the instant case, the compounding W.P.(C).No.18120 of 2015 7 proposal put forth on behalf of the petitioner, subject to certain stipulations, had been accepted by the 1st respondent and accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to reap the benefits that flowed from a declaration, of the legal position with regard to liability for penalty, in the judgment dated 06.03.2015 rendered in WP (C) No. 2873/2014 and connected cases. In the alternative, he would submit that the offence itself was not compounded in the absence of payment of the balance tax amounts by the petitioner. To substantiate his contentions, he would place reliance on the decisions in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1994 KHC 328], Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence) v. N.N.Jariwala [1992 (86) VST 229 (Kar)] and State of Karnataka v. Veerchand [1992 (87) VST 138 (Kar-FB)]. It is also contended that, even if it is assumed that the offence was compounded in terms of S.74 of the KVAT Act, in as much as it was not in dispute that the provisions of the proviso to S. 74 (1)(a) was attracted in the instant case, the maximum compounding fee that could have been collected from the petitioner in terms of the statute was only Rs. 2 Lakhs.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sri. M.S.Divakaran (Director) vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2014

The petitioner also places reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) v. N.N.Jariwala [1992 86 STC page 229] for the same purpose. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the decisions cited above, and while relegating the petitioner to his remedy of getting the pre-assessment notice adjudicated before the assessing authority, I make it clear that the assessing authority shall, while adjudicating the pre-assessment notice, after considering the contentions of the petitioner and also hearing him, also take note of the decisions referred above and consider the objections of the petitioner with regard to the alleged peculiar circumstances under which the compounding proceedings were completed against the petitioner. Leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to adduce such evidence as is necessary to support W.P.(C).No.13388 Of 2016 & W.P.(C).No.33399 Of 2017 5 the aforesaid contention, before the assessing authority W.P.(C). No.33399 of 2017 is also dismissed without interfering with Ext.P6 notice impugned therein, and relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of getting the matter adjudicated before the assessing authority. The 3rd respondent Assessing Officer shall consider and pass orders pursuant to Ext.P6 notice within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the 3rd respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent at his office at 11 a.m on 10.11.2017. The respondent shall pass orders as directed within a month thereafter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document
1