Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Sri Lakshmi Machine Works vs The State Of Madras on 31 January, 1973
3. Sri Lakshmi Machine Works v. The State of Madras, (1973) 32 S.T.C. 407 (Madras)
M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955
In the case of S/s Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal, Allahabad (supra), this Court has held that assessee had been importing Gari Gola in declaration Form-C. It is an item of Kirana even though it is liable to tax as oil seed being declared goods and therefore, there was no false representation.
The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 11 October, 2000
In the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Tilhar Shahjahanpur (supra) this Court has held that where dealer under bona fide belief that the purchase were made in respect of the goods, which were mentioned in the registration certificate, there cannnot be any case of false representation and no penalty under Section 10(b) of the Central Act is exigible.
Sanjiv Fabrics vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 21 August, 2003
In the case of Sanjiv Fabrics (supra) the assessee-dealer had imported cotton waste, Polythene, sutli and Tat against declaration Form-C, whereas it was registered under the central Act for 'cotton' and 'cotton yarn', this Court held that it cannot be said that any false representation has been made by the dealer.
Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Ram Singh And Sons Engineering Works on 29 January, 1975
In the case of Rama and Sons, General Merchant, Ballia (supra), this Court has held that apart from falsehood of representation it is not necessary to establish mens rea as an independent factor.
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs V.S. Naik on 6 May, 1980
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the plea regarding penalty order having been passed without any application of mind and the at the dictates of higher authorities had not been raised by the revisionist at any point of time. Even before the Tribunal no such plea has been raised. The affidavit of local counsel Sri G.C. Agarwal, which has been filed before this Court stating that the said point has been raised by him before the Tribunal cannot be taken into consideration inasmuch as it was open to the revisionist to make proper application before the Tribunal for rectification of the order for dealing with the point which has been raised by it but has not been dealt with by the Tribunal. Even in the order of the Tribunal mentioning arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist no such plea has been recorded and therefore, it is to be taken that till such time the Tribunal corrects the order, the plea of penalty order having been passed without application of mind has not been raised in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Naik, AIR 1982 SC 1249.
Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Kerala, ... on 2 May, 1989
While holding so this Court has relied upon a decission of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency v. C.I.T., (1989) 177 I.T.R. 455 wherein the Apex court has held as follows:-
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. & Anr on 28 September, 2004
In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Udyog Limited, (1972) 30 STC 565 (SC), the Apex Court has held that unless it is shown that the dealer had made false representation, Section 10(A) of the Central Act is not attracted.
M. Pais & Sons And Anr. vs The State Of Mysore on 17 September, 1965
In the case of M.Pais & Sons and Anr. (supra), the Madras High Court has held that for offence under Section 10(b) of the Central Act mens rea is necessary.