Allahabad Court August 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kanpur Vanaspati Stores Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC62(All)
1. The dealer, Kanpur Vanaspati Stores, carries on business in hydro. genated oil and washing soap. He also imports and distributes vanaspati as an agent of Malwa Vanaspati and Chemicals Limited, Indore.2. For the assessment year 1957-58 the dealer filed returns of his turnover under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for successive quarters of the year. Together they disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 1,66,387.03 and a net turnover in the same figure. During the assessment proceedings a statement of account was filed by the dealer showing a net turnover of Rs. 1,66,387.03 in respect of imported vanaspati and washing soap. He admitted that he had realised an amount of Rs. 10,207.54 as sales tax from his customers at the rate of one anna per rupee on imported vanaspati and six pies per rupee on washing soap. When the figures were worked out before the Sales Tax Officer the dealer admitted that the tax liability in respect of the turnover should be Rs. 10,339.19. The Sales Tax Officer issued a notice...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pritam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC414(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The respondent manufactures the bodies of motor vehicles employed as trucks and sells them. In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1956-57 the Sales Tax Officer determined the turnover of such bodies at Rs. 16,000 and, treating them as component parts of motor vehicles within the meaning of item No. 24 of Notification No. S.T.-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, issued by the State Government under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, computed the tax liability by applying the rate of one anna per rupee. The respondent preferred an appeal contending that a body mounted on the chassis of a motor vehicle was not a component part of the motor vehicle and, therefore, was not an item classified in the aforesaid notification. It should be considered, he urged, as an unclassified item liable to tax at the lower rate mentioned in Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The contention found favour with the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax and he allowed the appeal. The Commission...
Hind Vastra Bhandar Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC311(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1957-58 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act against the respondent, M/s Hind Vastra Bhandar, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice to Raja Ram and Hazoor Singh treating them as partners of the respondent. An assessment order was made determining the turnover of the respondent at Rs. 1,75,000. Two appeals were filed against the assessment order, one by Raja Ram and the other by Hazoor Singh. In the appeal filed by Hazoor Singh it was contended that he was not a partner of the respondent and therefore not liable for any tax liability of the respondent. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax found upon a consideration of the material on the record that Hazoor Singh had nothing to do with the respondent. He remanded the case on the consideration that 'the assessing authority did not care to obtain material so as to make Hazoor Singh liable for the assessee-firm in the eye of law' and that 'the assessing authority rushed up to draw a c...
Raghunath and ors. Vs. Ram Khelawan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All26
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. The dispute between the parties in this case relates to plots Nps. 5317/1 and 5317/2 area 28 acres each, situate in village Machhli Sahar, Fergana Ghesuwa, district Jaunpur. These two plots originally constituted plot No. 5317 measuring 56 acres. Syed Abdullah was the fixed rate tenant of this plot On 24-8-1949 he sold his half share in the aforesaid plots to Ram Khilawan, Ram Dular and Daya Ram, respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. were started, Those proceedings terminated in favour of Ram Khilawan, Ram Dular and Daya Ram. Thereafter, on 12th May, 1951 Naresh, father of the appellants Raghunath, Kedar Nath, Jai Nath and Hari Lal filed a suit against Ram Khilawan, Ram Dular, Daya Ram and Kaleem who was the landlord of the plots in dispute (he succeeded Syed Abdullah on the latter's death) under Section 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation, inter alia, that the plots in ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Badri Prasad Vishwanath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC364(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The respondent is a dealer carrying on business Kanpur. He was assessed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessme year 1953-54 and paid the sales tax assessed. He appealed against the assessment. The appeal was allowed by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax by an order dated 11th May, 1959, and the tax liability was reduced. On 7th June, 1960, the respondent applied for refund of the amount paid in excess of the tax liability determined in appeal and in the alternative prayed that the excess may be set off against the tax liability of subsequent years. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the application on the ground that it was filed more than twelve months after the date of the appellate order and was, therefore, barred by limitation under Section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent applied in revision and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax held that although the prayer for refund was barred by the limitation prescribed by Section 29, the prayer for adjustment of the...
Beni Ram Mool Chand Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC423(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of recovery proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act and the U.P. Act respectively. M/s. Beni Ram Mool Chand are the petitioners.2. This is a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling scents. The petitioner became liable to pay sales tax under the two statutes. The tax remained unpaid for a considerable time. The authorities, therefore, initiated proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax. The Collector of Farrukhabad issued on 28th March, 1967, a sale proclamation with respect to certain property belonging to the petitioner. According to the sale proclamation, the arrears outstanding against the petitioner amounted to Rs. 73,000 and odd. According to the petitioner, the claim of the respondents is highly exaggerated. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition for having the sale proclamation quashed. Annexure...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›