Allahabad Court March 1973 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Naveen Traders
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: [1975]36STC440(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Aligarh Range, Aligarh, has at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., referred the following two questions for our opinion :(1) Vad ki paristithiyon wa tathiyon ko dekhte hoe kiya 'rice bran' ko Rajya Vigyapti No. ST-3471/X dinak 16th July, 1956, ke anusar bhusi ki shriri men rakhha ja sakta hai ?(2) Vad ki paristithiyon aur tathiyon ko dekhte hoe kiya manniya aterikt nyayadhish (punrikshan) ka nirnai upyukt hai ?2. The assessee owns a rice mill. It purchased paddy and after processing it obtained rice. Thereafter, the rice so obtained is subjected to polishing process. As a result of this process, the outer surface of the rice is scraped off. The scraping so obtained, which is in powder form is called rice bran and in Etawah district, where this mill is situate, this product is also known as 'polish'. The bran so obtained is used for either extracting oil or for feeding cattle. By Notification No. ST-911/X ...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Bagar HusaIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1418
Onkar Singh, J.1. This reference has been made by the Civil and Sessions Judge. Lucknow arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) recommending that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dated 21-4-1969 be quashed.2. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were started in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Lucknow on the report of the Station Officer, Kakotl dated 14-4-1963. The dispute was between Babu Ram Rastogi and late Hakim Sajjad Husain over the possession of grove on (plots Nos. 483, 486, 491. 499, 445, 467, 469. and 470 measuring 20 bighas 6 biswas 7 biswansis situate at village Kathingra, police station Kakori, district Lucknow. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the preliminary order on 4-5-1963 and also attached the grove in question and directed the parties to file their affidavits and documents in support of their respective claims as to the possession thereof. In the meantime Hakim Sajjad Husain...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Vegetable Products Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC439(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of vanaspati product at Sitapur. For the firs quarter (April to June) of the assessment year 1972-73, the petitioner company submitted its return through registered post on 31st July, 1972, disclosing a turnover of Rs. 1,03,94,207.94 on which a tax of Rs. 7,78,228.90 was payable. The petitioner did not deposit the admitted tax before or at the time of riling of the return but sent an application along with the return praying for two months' time for depositing the tax. The second respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Sitapur, by his letter dated 22nd August, 1972, allowed the petitioner to deposit the admitted tax by 30th August, 1972. The petitioner deposited in two instalments a sum of Rs. 5,71,800.80 before 30th August, 1972. The balance of Rs. 2,06,428.10 was deposited by the petitioner in two instal ments on 22nd Sept...
Tag this Judgment!The State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Dhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All131
G.C. Mathur, J.1. Dhan Singh respondent No. 1, was the tenure-holder of a large area of land. A notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, was served upon him. He filed objections claiming that his family consisted of seven members. He also claimed certain exemptions. By the time the objections came to be decided his family had increased to nine members and he claimed that the ceiling area should be calculated on the basis of nine members in his family. The Prescribed Authority accepted his contention and calculated the ceiling area at 64 acres, but in calculating the surplus area the Prescribed Authority committed some error. Dhan Singh preferred an appeal for correcting the error in the calculation of the surplus area. In the appeal it was urged on behalf of the State Government that the child born subsequent to the coming into force of the Act could not be taken into account in calculating the members of the family. This contention was acc...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Raza Textiles Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1973
Reported in: [1977]106ITR408(All)
Ojha, J. 1. The respondent, M/s. Raza Textiles Ltd., Jwalanagar, Rampur, was directed by the Income-tax Officer, Rampur, under Section 18(3B) road with Section 18(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to pay Rs. 1,39,739-5-0 as tax on a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 which was remitted by the respondents as commission to M/s. Nathir Mal and Sons, Djakarta, Indonesia, during the assessment year 1952-53. An appeal was filed by the respondent against the said order, but was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it was not maintainable. This order was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent, thereafter, instituted a writ petition in this court, inter alia, on the ground that M/s. Nathir Mal and Sons was not a non-resident firm and, as such, the provisions of Section 18(3B) read with Section 18(7) were not applicable. This ground found favour with the learned single judge who decided the writ petition and withou...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Food Products Ltd. Vs. Tikam Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All573
Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 63,786/- on the basis of two bonds dated 5th February 3952 and 29th March, 1952 respectively. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows:The defendant No. 1 was a public limited company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Sri N.L. Bidani was its General Manager and a director. The defendant No. 1 promised to pay a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and another sum of Rs. 15,000/-under two bonds dated 27th March, 1952 and 5th February, 1952 respectively with interest at 7 per cent, per annum within two years from the date of the respective bonds. The plaintiff alleged that on 29th August, 1952 the defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rupees 10,000/- to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as part payment of the loan dated 27th March, 1952 but nothing was paid towards the loan due under the bond of 5th February, 1952. Subsequently the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 assigned the said debts under the said bond...
Tag this Judgment!Niaz Khan Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1344
M.N. Shukla, J.1. By this petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the validity of his detention in the district jail at Azamgarh.2. The petitioner alleged that he was born in 1936 in village Kamrai in Pakhtoonistaa (now situate in Pakistan), his father and family settled down in Calcutta in 1946, his father died in 1948 on 1st January 1966 the petitioner was enrolled as a member of the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind, he came from Calcutta to Kanpur in 1971 and thereafter shifted to Azamgarh where he set up business as a cloth dealer and staved with one Sher Khan. He had some Quarrel with Sher Khan and consequently, it is alleged, the latter got him implicated with the result that the petitioner was arrested on 16th August 1972 under Section 5/8 of the Foreigners (Internment) Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). Tlence. the petitioner filed this petition in the High Court on...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Deo Nigam Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ135
Onkar Singh, J.1. This is a reference by Civil and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, recommending that the order dated 28-11-1969 passed by Sri S. M. Abbas, a Magistrate of the First Class, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. 51 of 1969 under Section 488, Criminal P. C. be modified to be effective only for a sum of Rs. 480/-. Criminal Revision No. 184 of 1971 has been filed by Smt. Savitri Devi opposing the reference,2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are that Smt. Savitri Devi filed an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against her husband Shanker Deo Nigam, and on 19-12-1966 the Magistrate directed Shanker Deo Nigam to pay the allowance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per mensem effective from the date of the order. On 26-2-1969 Smt. Savitri Devi applied for execution of the order in the Court of Sri S. M. Abbas that her husband had paid her nothing towards her maintenance since the date of the order and prayed that the order for maintenance be ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sheo Nath Rai Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC436(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee filed its third quarterly return within time but did not deposit the admitted tax either before or at the time of filing the return. The Sales Tax Officer imposed upon him a penalty under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), On appeal, the quantum of penalty was reduced, but it was not cancelled. On revision, the revising authority accepted the assessee's plea that the case was not covered by Section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act and, as such, the penalty was illegal. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the following question of law has been referred to us for opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the assessee did not deposit the admitted tax either before filing of the return or along with the return, imposition of penalty under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Dhani Ram Bali Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC610(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. In compliance with the order of this court the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly, has submitted this statement of the case and has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Judge (Revisions) had jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the. issue of notice under Section 15-A(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the Sales Tax Officer ?2. The assessee was assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1966-67. He filed an appeal against the assessment order and applied to the Judge (Revisions) for stay of realisation of tax during the pendency of the appeal. The application was allowed and the order granting stay was communicated to the Sales Tax Officer. It is said that in spite of the stay order, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 15-A(c) of the Act calling upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied for non-payment of ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »