Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing ... vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ... on 19 February, 2003 cites

M/S Pappu Sweets And Biscuits vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow on 6 October, 1998

1. The petitioners are dealers of chocolates. The turnover of chocolate was subjected to four per cent of tax in the assessment proceedings. Subsequently on the basis of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1998] 111 STC 425 ; STI 1998 SC 97 notices under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") have been issued in some of the writ petitions on the ground that the toffee is taxable as an unclassified item and is not sweetmeat. In some writ petitions notices under Sections 21 and 22 are under challenge. In other writ petitions provisional assessment notices and proceedings have been challenged on the ground that toffee/chocolate is taxable as sweetmeat and not as unclassified item.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer,Bihar State ... vs Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors on 22 November, 1995

6. He further submitted that since some of the writ petitions have been filed against the notices issued under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act while in some writ petitions orders passed under Sections 21 and 22 have been challenged, which are appealable, the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy. He has submitted that the writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable and in support of this submission he has placed reliance upon (1995) 8 JT 331 (SC) (Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 658 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992

"A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and, while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1062 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P. vs M/S. Indra Industries on 12 January, 2000

11. It is very relevant to state here that toffee was treated as sweetmeat even by the Trade Tax Department. The Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act held that toffee is a sweetmeat as referred to in the assessment order filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. Further the Government issued G.O. No. 818 dated March 19, 2000 which has been circulated by the circular of the Commissioner dated March 21, 2000 in which it has been mentioned that the entire tax which has been imposed for the period prior to October 6, 1998 in excess of five per cent is to be waived and neither any tax nor interest can be realised. The circular issued by the Commissioner is binding upon the authorities vide [2001] 122 STC 100 (SC) ; [2001] 248 ITR 338 (SC) ; 2000 UPTC 472 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Indra Industries). A perusal of the letter of the State Government dated February 13, 2002, issued to the Commissioner, Trade Tax, shows that a representation was made by the dealers of toffee to the State Government that toffee was always treated as sweetmeat by the department prior to January 16, 2000 and the tax was imposed and realised accordingly. On the representation of the dealers of toffee the State Government directed by the aforesaid letter dated February 13, 2002 for the waiver of tax and interest in excess of five per cent on toffee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal ... vs State Of .Uttar Pradesh And Another on 21 July, 1976

The Standing counsel further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Karam Chand Thapar and Bros (Coal Sales) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1976] 38 STC 593 ; 1976 UPTC 671 for the proposition that an assessment order can be rectified on the basis of later decision of the High Court declaring correct law on the point. The said ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Sweets [1998] 111 STC 425 ; ITR 1998 SC 97, has not declared that for the purposes of rate of tax, toffee is not sweetmeat and is liable to be taxed as unclassified item. At the cost of repetition the Supreme Court was considering the matter for grant of exemption from trade tax to new industries under Section 4-A of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 70 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Ganesh Abhushan Bhandar on 28 January, 1966

He applied his mind on the said issue in the assessment order and considered the submissions of the dealer on this issue. After considering the judicial pronouncements as well as the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act and the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Pappu Sweets [19981 111 STC 425 ; STI 1998 SC 97, he concluded that the correct rate of tax on the turnover of toffee is five per cent including surcharge. In view of this, it cannot be said that the assessment order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon Narain Chemical Industries v. Sales Tax Officer, Moradabad 1970 UPTC 605 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Chetmani Abhushan Bhandar 1970 UPTC 178 for the proposition that mistake in applying the correct rate of tax by the assessing officer at the time of assessment can be rectified under Section 22 of the Act. A close perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that there the assessing officer had accepted the rate of tax as disclosed by the dealer without any discussion on the subject. The relevant paragraph is quoted below :
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

I.T.C. Agro-Tech Limited vs Commissioner Of Trade Tax on 3 March, 2000

16. An additional issue has been raised by the assessing officer in the notice under Section 21 of the Act. The assessing officer has sought to reopen the assessment of the turnover of mustard oil. It has been mentioned in the said notice that the mustard oil and refined mustard oil are two different commodities. The refined mustard oil in original proceedings has been taxed as mustard oil, which is different from mustard oil. Refined mustard oil comes into existence after processing mustard oil and as such it should be taxed at the rate of 8+2 per cent and not at the rate of 2.5 per cent including surcharge. However, the reasons given above with regard to toffee and chocolate hold good so far as they concern the refined mustard oil also. Moreover, this Court in I.T.C. Agro-Tech Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2000] 120 STC 402 ; 2000 UPTC 262 has held that refined mustard oil continues to be mustard oil. Hence no proceeding can legally be taken for reopening the assessment on this ground with regard to the turnover of refined mustard oil.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - P K Jain - Full Document
1