Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.91 seconds)M. M. Ipoh & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 26 July, 1967
11. Reference was also rightly made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the provisions of the Income-tax Act only to sustain his argument that there should be a specific provision in a fiscal enactment enabling the assessing authority to assess a dissolved firm and bring to tax its dealings during its pre-dissolution period. Though an argument was hesitantly raised by the counsel for the respondent that a father and a minor son cannot from an association of persons within the meaning of the Bombay Sales Tax At, 1959, yet this was not seriously pressed in view of the ratio in M. M. Ipoh v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1962) 46 ITR 301 (Mad.
The Amending Act, 1897
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966
It is only such a factual sale within the jurisdiction that would vest him with authority to proceed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. No attempt has been made by the respondent to secure such information even though he was challenged by the petitioners to prove the positive. Factually also the petitioners should succeed. As pointed out by Shelat J. in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, -
The Bombay University Act, 1974
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The State Of U.P. And Anr. vs Duli Chand Kashi Prasad on 11 May, 1966
7. As pointed out by the Allahabad High Court in State of U. P. v. Dulichand Kashi Prasad, -
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
We respectfully adopt the observations made by the learned Judges. We are of the view that in the absence of any disclosure of acceptable material or reasonable data to entertain a doubt at least that the goods were sold in the State of Maharashra, then it is proper for this court to stop the enquiry at its threshold even at its inception, for neither the jurisdictional fact which would vest the Revenue with the power to proceed is present or the normal facet of jurisdiction to exercise a power is apparent in the proceedings. We are unable to appreciate the line of argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that this application is premature. This argument ignores the plain intention of the notice which calls upon the petitioners to prove the negative to show that they did no effect a sale and in its absence to submit to the heavy assessment and the consequential penalty indicated therein. This places upon the assessee considerable hardship, harassment and liability, for if it is established that there was no sale and the inchoate and incomplete materials of the assessing authority is a myth, then it would constitute in present an encroachment on and an infringement of the petitioners' right which entitles them to immediately appeal to the appropriate court for redress--see the observations of the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, . We are therefore unable to accept the argument that this writ petition is not maintainable because an alternative remedy is available and the respondent is outside the jurisdiction of this State.