Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... vs M.S.K. Shahul Hameed on 30 January, 1967
We have held to that effect in State of Madras v. M. S. K. Shahul Hameed T.C. No. 350 of 1966. Apart from that, where no return is filed on the view that a certain transaction does not amount to sale of goods and such a point of view is arguable, we do not think that Section 12(3) will be attracted to such a case. Actually, except W. P. No. 379 of 1967, the rest of the cases are cases of reopening of original assessments. Hardly will Section 12(3) be applicable to cases of reopening assessments. Returns were filed in those cases but claiming that the transactions did not amount to sale of goods and, therefore, no tax would be payable. The department apparently accepted that view in the first instance. That being the case, the reassessment orders in those petitions should be regarded as having been made under Section 16. Unless the assessing officer finds that there was wilful default in not making a return or in making an incorrect return there will be no liability to penalty under Section 16(2). . We are, therefore, of the view that the penalty levied in all these cases is unsustainable.
Section 16 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
The Factories Act, 1948
Janab S. Ahmed Hussain And Sons, Three ... vs Secretary United Beedi Workers' Union, ... on 24 July, 1958
In J. S. Ahmed Hussain & Sons v. Secretary, United Beedi Workers' Union A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 221, the facts were these: There were certain proprietors engaged in the manufacture and sale of beedies. The beedi rolling work was done by certain persons engaged by contracts called intermediaries. The work of rolling beedies was not done in any of the premises belonging to, or at the disposal of the proprietors, but in the premises of the intermediaries with whom the proprietors had entered into written contracts. The contracts provided for supply by the proprietors to the intermediaries of tobacco and beedi leaves. The intermediary should engage premises of his own and obtain the requisite licence to carry on the work of having the beedies rolled in such premises. The intermediary should meet all the incidental charges of rolling the beedies, including the cost of thread and the remuneration paid to the beedi rollers. A further term in the contract was that for every unit of thousand beedies rolled and delivered by the intermediary to the proprietors, the latter should pay the stipulated amount after deducting the cost of the tobacco and the beedi leaves supplied by the proprietors. The intermediaries were forbidden under the contract from entering into similar engagements for any other industrial concern. The evidence in that case brought out that it was left to the discretion of the proprietors to supply or not further material for the manufacture of beedies. The intermediaries could not compel the proprietors to ensure either that the intermediaries or those that work for them were provided with work and the intermediaries had to meet their charges out of what was payable to them for the unit of thousand beedies rolled and delivered to the proprietors. The legal liability to meet all the charges for rolling the beedies in their premises was on the intermediaries and their only right under the contract was to get from the proprietors payment at the stipulated rate, less the cost of the raw materials for every unit of thousand beedies. An industrial dispute arising out of a cut introduced in the rate payable to the beedi rollers was referred to the Tribunal, who passed an award restoring the rate payable to the beedi rollers. Rajagopalan, J., disagreeing with the Tribunal, was of the view that the jural relationship between the intermediary and the proprietor was not that of master and servant and that the intermediary himself was not a workman employed by the proprietor in his industry within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the proprietors to pay the beedi rollers at the rate specified in the award.
1