Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-01-2002
Reported in : 2003LC560(Calcutta),2003(156)ELT841(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This reference application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter called the said Act] has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in respect of an order dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Regional Bench, Calcutta [hereinafter called as CEGAT], In the said application, 8 (eight) question were framed.2. The said application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and the said Division Bench, by an order dated 17-4-2001, after hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, directed the Tribunal to refer to only one question for the opinion of this Court.3. The question which was referred to by the Division Bench is as follows :'Whether the drawback is allowable more particularly in terms of Rule 13(2)(iv) of the Drawback Rules, 1995 wherein the exporters were required to submit a valid insurance certificate along with the drawback claim. A perusal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-13-2002
Reported in : [2002]257ITR681(Cal)
1. This is a petition of appeal under Section 260A seeking to challenge the decision of the Tribunal given on December 12, 2001.2. The sum involved is Rs. 31,38,017 for the assessment year 1994-95, the said sum being claimed by the assessee as expenses for rent, depreciation, repair and maintenance of its guest-house.3. Although it is the stage of mere admission of appeal, the Revenue hotly resisted the admission itself on the twin argument, that--(i) Two Division Bench decisions of the Calcutta High Court given in the cases of C1T v. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd : [1994]206ITR215(Cal) and Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]191ITR518(Cal) squarely cover the issue ; and(ii) The wording of Section 37(4), as operative at the material time is too clear to permit any doubts being had as regards the disallowance of the guesthouse expenditure items.4. Faced with the stiff opposition of the Revenue, Dr. Pal appearing for the assessee, had to place before us numerous author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)1CALLT446(HC)
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The petitioner viz. Supreme Paper Mills Ltd. Filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as'The Tribunal'. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was carrying on business of manufacturing various types of papers at its paper mill situated at village Raninagar, Chakdah, Dist. Nadia. It had challenged the notice under Section 11E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, for reopening of deemed assessment for the period from 1st January, 1989 to 31st March, 1989. Petitioner also filed three separate applications being registered as RN-204, RN-205 and RN-206 of 1999 apart from RN-203 of 1999 challenging respective notices in each case under Section 9A(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. All the four cases, as referred to, arose out of the similar set of circumstances though related to different periods. The Tribunal heard all th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-16-2002
1. These two appeals, filed by the assessee, are directed against two separate orders - both dated 15-12-1997 - passed by the learned CIT(A) XI, Calcutta, and, as a matter of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. We will first take up ITA No. 313/Cal./98 i.e. assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1994-95.3. In first ground of appeal, the assessee is aggrieved of CIT(A)'s confirming 'the loss from purchase and sale of shares and securities of Rs. 1,41,60,772 as speculation loss as per Explanation to Section 73' of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. Briefly, the facts. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that in the relevant previous year 'the assessee has sold some shares which were held by it as stock in trade' and that the assessee incurred loss of Rs. 1,41,60,772 on such transactions. It is also an admitted position that main source of income for the assessee was un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-20-2002
Reported in : (2003)1CALLT490(HC)
N.C. Sil, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1999 and 16.2.1999 respectively passed by Sri Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, Civil Judge, Senior Division, 8th Court, Alipore in connection with Title Appeal No. 156 of 1998 affirming in part the judgment and decree dated 11.5.1998 passed by Sri Dulal Chandra Kar, learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 5th Court, Alipore in connection with Title Suit No. 20 of 1994.2. The suit before the learned lower Court was for eviction of a premises tenant and also for mesne profit on the ground of default in payment of rent, for reasonable requirements and also for subletting. The learned trial Judge appears to have decreed the suit on the grounds of default in payment of rent and the ground of reasonable requirement and subletting were according to him not established. The benefit of Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short) was not given to the tenant/defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-13-2002
Reported in : (2005)2CALLT44(HC)
Maharaj Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order of a learned single Judge dated 20 December, 1991 passed in Civil Rule No. 4449 (W) of 1978.2. A writ application was moved way back in the year 1978, to be precise on 20 July, 1978, when a Rule was issued and an interim order made by His Lordship, Mr. Justice N.C. Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was). Eventually, the said writ application was heard on merits and thehrg was concluded on or about 11 June, 1985 and the judgment was delivered after a lapse of five and a half years thereafter, to be precise again, on 20 December, 1991.3. The facts and circumstances on the basis of which the said writ application was moved could thus be put in a short compass.4. In the month of February, 1971 newspaper advertisements were made inviting applications for a whole time permanent post of Deputy Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, shortly called Deputy Legal Remembrancer (commonly known as D.L.R. in lega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-07-2002
Reported in : [2003]131STC453(Cal)
Sales Tax - reassessment - Section 11 E of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act,1941, Rule 54AA of Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and Rule 9 of Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958 - petitioner challenged notices of reopening of assessment - Rule 9 prescribes reopening to be made in terms of Section 11E and Rule 54AA and Rules of 1941 - reopening made through notice under Section 11E and Rule 54AA and Rules of 1941 cannot be questioned - notice issued on basis of seized books of accounts - petitioner not suffered prejudice - petition dismissed.JudgmentDilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notices of reopening of the assessment made under the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941 ('1941 act') for the respective periods 1988-89 till 1992 as well as the order of reopening dated october 23, 1998 passed by the deputy commissioner, commercial taxes, howrah circle, and the assessment made under the said order by the commercial tax officer (cto) respectively.Submission on beha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-07-2002
Reported in : (2002)3CALLT114(HC)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This petition has been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as AA 1940) challenging on various grounds the award made and published by the Joint Arbitrators dated 17.10.2000. The material facts of the case are noted below.2. On or about 10th May 1991, the petitioner invited a tender for transportation of approximately 25,000 MT to 50,000 MT of coal from the Port of Haldia to the Port of Cochin. The said coal was required for the consumption of the subsidiary of the petitioner, viz. M/s. Hindusthan Newsprint. Pursuant to the said tender, the respondents submitted their quotation on or about 12th June 1991 and, ultimately, on 18th September 1991, the quotation of the respondent was accepted on certain conditions.3. In order to carry out the obligation under the said contract, the respondent, as a disponent owner chartered a Vessel, viz. M.V. Lok Prakash from M/s. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and, thereafter, a Chart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-12-2002
Reported in : [2002]253ITR678(Cal)
ORDERAsok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Tender evaluation Committee recommending the acceptance of the tender submitted by the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as the 'private respondents) in respect of Construction of Belghoria Express Way, Package II. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the tender submitted by the private respondents does not conform to the requirements stipulated in the Instruction to the Bidders (hereinafter to as the said ITB). It was submitted by the petitioner that the tender of the private respondents should have been rejected as non responsive by the State if the conditions of ITB were adhered to.2. The material facts of the case are as follows :Both the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are Class I Contractors and empanelled with the Public Works Department and other organizations.3. A pre-qualification notice was sent to the petitioners inviting proposals from them for short list...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : (2002)1CALLT467(HC)
A. Kabir, J. 1. This writ petition at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the judgment and order passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal on 18th January, 2001, in Case No. R.N. 269 of 1999 quashing the order dated 2nd July. 1998 and 25th May, 1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell and the Deputy Commis-sioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Cell, respectively cancelling the Eligibility Certificate issued to the respondent No.2 herein under Section 39 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' with retrospective effect.2. The respondent No,2 is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Adarsh Polymers which is an Industrial unit duly registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries. It began operations in May. 1996, with new plant and machinery for manufacture of HDPE Cloth and Bags. On the application of the respondent No.2 the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!