Allahabad Court August 1973 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.
Jagdish Kumar Bajpai and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ133
Hari Swarup, J.1. Jagdish Kumar Bajpai, Jagwansh Kumar Bajpai and Sheo Kumar Bajpai have filed the above appeal against their conviction under Section 201, I. P. C. and sentences of six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each. Along with the accused, one Vinod Kumar Bajpai was also tried. He has been acquitted,2. The prosecution case in brief Was that Arvind Kumar murdered his wife Smt. Sashi Devi by strangulation in the night of 21st and 22nd of October, 1969. Arvind Kumar Bajpai is the brother of Jagwansh Kumar Bajpai and Sheo Kumar Bajpai all of whom are sons of Jagdish Kumar Bajpai. In the morning the accused and Vinod Kumar Bajpai and Arvind Kumar Bajpai took the body of Smt. Sashi Devi for cremation. The relations of Smt. Sashi Devi suspected a foul play. They intervened and opened the body and found that she had been murdered and had not died a natural death. The first information report was lodged of the occurrence at 9.40 a. m. by Srikant. The Investigating Officer took the...
Devi Charan Sri Mohan Dass Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC547(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference in compliance with the order of this court under Section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The revising authority has referred the following three questions:(1) Whether the account books maintained by the applicant answer the requirements of Rule 72(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules?(2) Whether there was any material for rejecting the system of maintaining the manufacturing accounts followed ever since by the applicant and generally by all other manufacturers of utensils at Mirzapur and making a best judgment assessment?(3) Whether even assuming that account books suffer from technical defects, there was any material for enhancement of the applicant's turnover from Rs. 2,52,796.71 to the round figure of Rs. 2,60,000 or that of utensils from Rs. 43,375.34 to Rs. 50,579.03?2. The three questions referred by the revising authority and reproduced above are those which were suggested by the assessee in his application under Section 11(4) of the Act. But thi...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hamidullah and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC571(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The assessee deals in building materials and among other things sells marble chips. In the assessment year 1965-66, which is the year in dispute, the assessee contended that marble chips were marble goods and, as such, were exempt from tax. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, but was accepted on appeal by the appellate authority, as also by the Judge (Revisions). The Commissioner is aggrieved and at his instance the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly, has referred the following question for our opinion:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee is a dealer of building material, the Additional Judge (Revisions) was justified in exempting the turnover of marble chips?2. Under Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956, the turnover of several commodities enumerated in the two lists attached to the notification, has been exempted from tax under Section 4 of the Act. Item No. 12 in List II is 'marble ...
Sarsowati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC8(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. The assessee deals in silver bullion and silver ornaments. For the assessment year 1965-66 he filed returns disclosing a total turnover of Rs. 3,44,648.92 made up of sale of bullion Rs. 3,28,164.32 and sale of ornaments Rs. 16,484.60. The assessee's accounts were rejected and the turnover was estimated at Rs. 4,00,000 consisting of sale of ornaments at Rs. 1,00,000 and sale of bullion at Rs. 3,00,000.2. On appeal, the turnover of bullion was enhanced to Rs. 3,30,000 and that of ornaments was reduced to Rs. 60,000. His plea for the acceptance of his accounts was rejected. His revision application to the revising authority was also rejected. He then applied for a reference under Section 11(1) and the Revising Authority, Allahabad, has submitted this statement of the case with the following two questions for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, best judgment assessment was justified ?(2) Whether, in the facts and circums...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Surajmal Rajendra Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC528(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The assessee is a dealer in foodgrains. In the assessment year 1966-67, he imported foodgrains from outside U.P. of the value of Rs. 2,53,056.32. He was assessed to and paid purchase tax on these imports. Under Section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, purchase tax is leviable on the first purchase. The assessee was not the first purchaser in U.P. of the foodgrains in question yet he paid the tax under a mistake. The Sales Tax Officer, Moradabad, who imposed the tax also did not notice the fact that the imports were not taxable and levied tax as if the imports were the first purchase by the assessee. Later on, the assessee realised the mistake. He accordingly made an application for rectification of the assessment order under Section 22 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer agreed that there was a mistake as pointed out by the assessee, but he rejected the application for rectification on the ground that as the assessee had not disclosed the names of the first purchasers ...
HarinaraIn Chhotey Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC599(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The assessee is a dealer in foodgrains, oil-seeds, etc. During the assessment year 1959-60 he neither filed any return nor paid any tax. The Sales Tax Officer served upon the assessee on 19th March, 1964, a notice under Section 21 of the Act for the assessment year in question. The notice was served by affixation. The assessee did not appear on the appointed date and the Sales Tax Officer made a best judgment assessment on a turnover of Rs. 3,90,000. The assessee appealed and questioned the legality of the service of the notice under Section 21 of the Act. The appellate authority held the service as legal and proper but he remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer as, in his opinion, proper opportunity had not been allowed to the assessee to produce his account books, etc., and there was no basis for the estimate of the turnover. The assessee went up in revision ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›