Allahabad Court January 1970 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Parson Tools and Plants, ... Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: AIR1970All428; [1971]27STC73(All)
Dwivedi, J. 1. These are two references under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has made these references. He has formulated a common question of law and has referred the cases for opinion to this Court. The common question of law is this: 'Whether under the circumstances of the case Section 14 of the Limitation Act extended the period for filing of the revisions by the time during which the restoration applications remained pending as being prosecuted bona fide?'2. Facts giving rise to these references are these: The respondent, M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, carries on business at Kanpur. The Sales Tax Officer assessed sales tax for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 on the respondent. Two separate orders were made. There were two appeals by the respondent. On the date of the hearing of the appeals the respondent was absent. So the appeals were dismissed in default on May 10, 1963. The appeals were dismi...
Shambhu Dayal and ors. Vs. Pt. Basdeo Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: AIR1970All525
Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 1. This application in revision has been, laid before this Full Bench upon a reference made by Dhavan, J. It is directed against an order of the Judge Small Cause Court, Agra (exercising the powers of a Civil Judge) by which he reversed In appeal an order of the Munsif Fatehabad, Agra, refusing to set aside an award and sent back the case t9 him with the direction to hear, and decide the suit in which the award was given.2. The relevant facts are these. Basdeo Sahai, plaintiff, filed Suit No. 121 of 1949 in the court of the Civil Judge, Agra, against Gauri Shanker, Basant Lal and Sukh Ram for a declaration that he was in possession of the property in suit which is a house situate in Qasba Fizabad, district Agra as its exclusive owner and that the defendants had no right to disturb his possession over it in any manner. The suit was transferred to the court of the Munsif Fatehbad, Agra, by an order of the District Judge. During the pendency of the suit Gauri Shanker...
Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: [1970]76ITR205(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether the provisions of the Gift-tax Act would prevail upon the provisions of Mohamedan law so far as the gifts to the three sons are concerned ? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that there was a delivery of possession of the subject-matter of the gift under the Mohamedan law in the present case and the gift-tax was rightly attracted ?' 2. The assessee, Mohammad Mustafa, was a member of a partnership firm, 'Mohammad Mustafa and Sons' There were four partners in all, and three of them, including the assessee, 'retired' from December 31, 1958. The assessee had contributed a capital of Rs. 31,016-12-0, and on his retirement that amount was divided between his three sons, Mohammad Masood, Mohammad Neman and Mohammad Suleman. It appears that the amount was transferred in ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Pradeep Products
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC74(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The only controversy between the assessee and the department was whether ingoor and sindoor were 'cosmetics and toilet requisites' or 'dyes, colours and compositions thereof' within the meaning of entries 3 and 6 of the notification dated 1st April, 1956, issued Under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, on the one hand, or whether these articles were unclassified items taxable Under Section 3 of the Act on the other. The assessing officer held that ingoor and sindoor were 'toilet and cosmetics' and levied tax on the assessee on that basis. On appeal, the finding was reversed. It was held that these articles did not constitute cosmetics and toilet but were dyes and colours within the meaning of entry 6 and as such they were taxable at the same rate as cosmetics and toilet. The assessee was not entitled to any relief.2. The Judge (Revisions), however, took a different view. He held that ingoor and sindoor were neither cosmetics and toilet nor dyes and colours with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›