Allahabad Court July 1976 Judgments
Sri Mohammad Nazirul, Haq and ors. Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner ( ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)309
R. M. Sahai, J. - The petitioners, stage carriage owners, submitted their monthly returns in the year 1967-68. Notices were issued under section 8(1) under the provisions of U.P. Motor Gari Yatri Kar Adhiniyam, 1962, after more than three years on the ground that the returns filed by the petitioners were inaccurate and incomplete. An objection was filed which was rejected and an order under section 8(2) was passed directing the petitioners to deposit the amount of tax showed in the order and also the penalty imposed against them. The petitioners preferred appeals which were allowed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and he remanded the case with a direction to the assessing authority to decide the cases afresh after giving notice to the petitioner regarding the amount of tax and penalty assessed against them. Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing for the petitioners has not challenged the appellate order but has confined his arguments on the validity of notices on the ground that they were wi...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ahmad and ors. Vs. Rais Ahmed and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ450
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The petitioners filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with respect to immovable property. The learned Magistrate being satisfied that there was an apprehension of the breach of peace, passed a preliminary order on 24th March, 1976. Considering the case one of emergency, Me also directed attachment of the property. Aggrieved by this order a revision was filed by the opposite parties before the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. This revision was dismissed on 30th April, 1976. Thereafter none of the parties approached this Court, with the result that the order dated 24th March, 1976 became final between the parties. It appears from a perusal of Annexure '5' that on 15th May, 1976 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahoba directed the opposite parties to file their written statement and to produce evidence in support of their respective claim by 21st May 1976. Aggrieved by this order the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in this Court.2. It may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Tika Ram Arhti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC147(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 9(1)(b) as amended with effect from 1st October, 1970, is applicable to the case of the assessee 2. The facts giving rise to the reference are that proceedings under Section 21 were initiated in the year 1966 and an ex parte assesssment order was passed on 18th October, 1966. The assessee filed an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded for reassessment by an order dated 16th September, 1969. The assessing authority passed a fresh order on 31st December, 1970. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Meerut. An objection was raised on behalf of the department that as the assessee had not deposited 20 per cent of the tax assessed the appeal was not maintainable in view of the amendment made in Section 9 by Amendment Act No. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. M/S. Tilak Ram Arhti, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)321
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case section 9(i)(b) as amended w.e.f. 1-10-1970 is applicable to the case of the assessee.'The facts giving rise to the reference are that proceedings under section 21 were initiated in the year 1966 and an ex-parte assessment order was passed on 18th October, 1966. The assessee filed an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded for reassessment by an order dated 16-9-69. The assessing authority passed a fresh order on 31st of December 1970. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Meerut. An objection was raised on behalf of the Department as the assessee had not deposited 20% of the tax assessed the appeal was nor maintainable in view of the amendment made in section 9 by Amendment Act III of 1970. The contention was upheld and the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mewalal Kewal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC551(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Revising Authority, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, has under Section 11(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, Jhe sales made by the assessee were not inter-State sales as to attract tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act ?2. The assessment relates to the year 1960-61, and the dealer carried on the business in foodgrains. The turnover fixed for the year was Rs. 11,227.59, which was taxed at 7 per cent on the ground that it was an inter-State sale. The contention of the dealer on the contrary was that it should have been taxed at 1 per cent as it was a sale effected in U. P.3. The modus operandi in which the transactions were effected was this. The dealer at the instance of the parties in U. P., used to send foodgrains outside U. P. The railway receipts were made up in the name of the dealer. Thereafter the railway receipts were endorsed in favo...
Tag this Judgment!State of U. P. and anr. Vs. Kaluwa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC79(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. This appeal by the State of U. P. and the Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, is from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who reversed the judgment and decree of the Munsif at Aligarh and decreed the suit.2. The plaintiff had been assessed to sales tax for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. He pleaded before the Sales Tax Officer (appellant 2) that he was only a moulder, that he was moulding articles with the materials supplied by his customers and that he was not selling any goods. He denied having sold any goods to respondent 2, M/s. Dass Electrical, Delhi. In spite of the above plea, the Sales Tax Officer, as admitted by him in his evidence as D. W. 1, made no enquiry from M/s. Dass Electrical as to whether the plaintiff had supplied any goods to that firm, but merely on the basis of some secret information gathered behind the back of the plaintiff, assessed him to sales tax for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The plaintiff's appeals under the Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and Another Vs. Kaluwa and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)291
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - This appeal by the State of U.P. and the Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, is from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who reversed the judgment and decree of the Munsif at Aligarh and decreed the suit.2. The plaintiff had been assessed to sales tax for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. He pleaded before the Sales Tax Officer (appellant-2) that he was only a moulder, that he was moulding articles with the materials supplied by his customers and that he was not selling any goods. He denied having sold any goods to respondent-2, M/s. Dass Electrical, Delhi. In spite of the above plea, the Sales Tax Officer, as admitted by him in his evidence as D.W. 1, made no enquiry from M/s. Dass Electrical as to whether the plaintiff had supplied any goods to that firm, but merely on the basis of some secret information gathered behind the back of the plaintiff, assessed him to sales tax for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The plaintiffs appeals under the Sales Tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswati Vyas Vs. Pratap NaraIn Vyas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All173
Satish Chandra, J.1. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff applied that the defendant be called upon to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 700/- for costs of the suit and damages. In the alternative it was prayed that plot No. 20 belonging to the defendant be attached. The defendant Smt. Saraswati Vyas filed an objection in which she, inter alia, gave an undertaking that she will not alienate the said plot. The learned Munsif acceptedthe undertaking and refused to pass any order of attachment. Subsequently the defendant appears to have sold the plot by a registered deed of sale dated 10th May, 1968. Thereupon the plaintiff applied for action being taken against the defendant for disobeying the order of the Court. The trial Court rejected the application, whereupon the plaintiff went up in appeal. The learned Judge Small Causes held that the original order of the Munsif was an order of injunction issued under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant had given an...
Tag this Judgment!Matreja and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR378(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referred the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 185(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently the benefit of continuance of registration could not have effect for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The facts leading to this reference may be briefly stated, In the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee-firm which has been constituted under a deed of partnership dated August 1, 1967, consisted of the following partners:1. Seth Suganchand, 2. Sri Tarachand s/o Sri Suganchand, 3. Smt. Mayadevi w/o Sri Jairamadass, 4. Smt. Poonam Devi w/o Sri Veerbhan Das. 3. The firm had been granted registration on the basis of this partnership for th...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Sharan Lal S/O Ram Charan Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0293A
R. M. Sahai, J. - A large number of petitions have been filed challenging the enhancement of tax on the purchase of sugar-cane by U.P. Sugar Cane Purchase Tax Act 1974. They can be divided in two categories. The challenge in one bunch of petition is founded on Article 14. It has been alleged that the increase by the amending Act of 1974 in the case of an unit was 100 per cent whereas in the case of factories it was only by 50 percent. We do not propose to go into detail in this aspect as due to promulgation of Emergency we are precluded from considering the challenge on this score. The petitioners have also not pressed this point. We may further point out that by virtue of Art. 40 of 1975 the enhancement in the case of factories has also been made approximately to 100 percent. The first bunch of the petitions therefore fail.2. The attack in the second bunch of petitions has been based on a footing that although the petitioner had exercised option to be assessed on the assumed quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »