Allahabad Court July 1977 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Makhanlal Chainsukh Das.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)191
Satish Chandra, J. - The question of law referred to us in this case is whether Keorajal and Gulabjal were taxable at 7 per cent under the entry relating to scents and perfumes. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax held Gulabjal and Keorajal were not either scents or perfumes. They were taxable as unclassified articles at 2 per cent. When this case came up for hearing before a Division Bench, it, by an order dated January 31, 1974, asked for a supplementary statement indicating the method of preparation of Gulabjal and Keorajal and their possible uses. The Judge (Revisions) has submitted a supplementary statement of the case in which he has given the process of preparation. He states :'The process of preparation of perfumes and scents from Gulab and Keora is a continuous one. At first Gulabjal and Keorajal is prepared and from this water, perfumes and scents are extracted. The entire process is described as under.For the manufacture of Gulabjal or Keorajal common process of distillation is ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. JaIn Trunk Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC274(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The question of law raised in this reference is whether the turnover of steel trunks was assessable to sales tax at 3 per cent or 2 per cent. The liability to 3 per cent would have been appropriate if steel trunks were held to be covered by the entry 'wares made of any metal'. The term 'wares' denotes utensils. Actually the Hindi version of the notification uses the word bartan for the word 'wares'. Steel trunks do not answer the description of wares or bartan. We, therefore, hold that steel trunks are not covered by the entry 'wares made of any metal'. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain [1970] 25 S.T.C. 471, a Bench of this Court has held that steel trunks are not hardwares. That decision is binding on us.2. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is that the turnover of steel trunks was not taxable at 3 per cent and that the revising authority was justified in holding them taxable at 2 per cent. Since no one has appeared on behalf o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. JaIn Trunk Stores.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)9
Satish Chandra, J. - The question of law raised in this reference is whether the turnover of steel trunks was assessable to Sales Tax at 3 per cent. or 2 per cent. The liability 3 per cent. would have been appropriate if steel trunks were held to be covered by the entry wares made of any metal. The term wares denotes utensils. Actually the Hindi version of the notification uses the word Bartan for the word wares. Steel trunks do not answer the description of wares or Bartan. We, therefore, hold that steel trunks are not covered by the entry wares made of any metal. In C.S.T. vs. Aftab Husian Imdad Husain, a Bench of this Court has held that steel trunks are not hardwares. This decision is binding on us.2. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is that the turnover of steel trunks was not taxable at 3 per cent. and that the revising authority was justified in holding them taxable at 2 per cent. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to co...
Tag this Judgment!Central Food Storage Vs. Commissioner Ofsales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC529(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. Messrs. Central Food Storage, Kanpur, dealt with foodgrains. They used to supply foodgrains on the orders of the Central Government to different places. The turnover of this kind of transaction in foodgrains was brought to tax. The assessee went up in appeal and contended that since the sale by the Government departments was exempt by a notification issued under Section 4(l)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, their turnover of inter-State sales on the orders of the Central Government was equally exempt from Central sales tax in view of Section 8(2A) of the Central Act. This contention was upheld by the Judge (Appeals). The assessee had also contended that he was not a dealer within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act. This latter contention was, however, repelled. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, felt aggrieved and went up in revision.2. The Judge (Revisions), in his judgment, overruled the view taken by the Judge (Appeals) by a process of reasoning which we are unable to deci...
Tag this Judgment!Jhansi Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC454(All)
1. M/s. Jhansi Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti was assessed to sales tax ex parte by an order passed on 3rd August, 1967. The assessment order was served on the co-operative society's accountant on 13th October, 1967. Subsequently, the same assessment order was served on the secretary of the co-operative society on 25th January, 1968. The society filed an appeal on 2nd February, 1968. The office of the appellate court raised an objection that the appeal was beyond time. This was based on computation as if service was effected on 13th October, 1967. The assessee filed an objection as well as an application for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the society was that service on the accountant was neither valid nor lawful. Hence the actual service on the secretary on 25th January, 1968, was the only relevant and valid date from which the period of limitation for appeal was to be computed. The appeal was thus within time. The Judge (Appeals) held ...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Deo Sharma and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)240
Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioners operate stage carriage within the jurisdiction of the Passenger Tax Officer, Aligarh. They agreed to pay Passenger Tax on lump sum basis as prescribed by the Uttar Pradesh Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 and its Rules. By U.P. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 11 of 1972), an additional tax was levied on every passenger at the rate of 10 paisa on each fare provided the fare was not less than one rupee.2. The petitioner say that they paid this additional tax on way-bill basis, namely calculating at the rate of 10 Paisa per fare per journey. Their case is that they never entered into any agreement with the respondents to pay the additional tax on lump sum basis.3. On 17th April, 1974, the State Government issued a notification increasing the lump sum amount by 25 per cent. The same day, the Government issued another notification whereby sub-rule (4-A) was added to Rule 5 of the Rules. This sub-rule provided that the lump sum pay...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Nav Prabhat Shoe Factory.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)244
Satish Chandra, J. - The Judge Revisions Sales Tax, Agra had submitted this statement of the case for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law :-'Whether on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, sales worth Rs. 40,517.75 were sales in the course of export and, as such the assessee was entitled to claim exemption regarding them ?'2. The assessee is a manufacturer of shoes at Agra. He entered into a contract with the State Trading Corporation of India for manufacture of certain varieties of shoes so that the Corporation could export them to foreign byers. The terms of the contract between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation were that the manufacturers shall allow foreign buyers inspection staff to come and inspect the goods. This was to be the preliminary inspection and the approval of the goods was provisional subject to the final acceptance and if any goods were rejected by them, entitled to recover the price which had already been paid by them t...
Tag this Judgment!Central Food Storage Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)0242A
Satish Chandra, J. - Messrs. Central food Storage, Kanpur dealt with food grains. They used to supply foodgrains on the orders of the Central Government to different places. The turnover of this kind of transaction in foodgrains was brought to tax. The assessee went up in appeal and contended that since the sale by Government Departments was exempt by a notification issued under S. 4(1) (B) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, their turnover of inter State sales on the orders of the Central Government was equally exempt from Central Sales Tax in view or S. 8(2-A) of the Central Act. This contention was upheld by the Judge Appeals. The assessee had also contended that he was not a dealer within the meaning of the Sales-tax Act. This latter contention was, however, repelled. The Commissioner, Sales-tax felt aggrieved and went up in revision.2. The Judge Revisions, in his judgment, overruled the view taken by the Judge Appeals by a process of reasoning which we are unable to decipher or understand....
Tag this Judgment!Jhansi Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)117
Satish Chandra, J. - M/s. Jhansi Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti was assessed to Sales Tax ex-parte by an order passed on 3-8-1967. The assessment order was served on the co-operative societys accountant on 13-10-1967. Subsequently, the same assessment order was served on the Secretary of the co-operative society on 25-1-1968. The society filed an appeal on. 2-2-1968. The Officer of the appellate court raised an objection that the appeal was beyond time. This was based on computation as if service was effected on 13-10-1967. The assessee filed an objection as an application for the condonation of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. The contention of the society was that service on the accountant was neither valid now lawful. Hence the actual service on the Secretary on 25-1-1968 was the only relevant and valid date from which the period of limitation for appeal was to be computed The appeal was thus within time. The Judge (Appeals) held that service on the accountant was valid and dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1783
ORDERV.N. Varma, J.1.This is an application for bail Under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C., filed by one Ram Chandra.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant has not argued this application for bail on merits. The main burden of his argument is that the detention of the applicant has all along been unlawful and as such he is entitled to bail.3. The applicant surrendered himself in the Court of a magistrate at Basti. The Magistrate took him into custody and sent him to jail. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the custody of the applicant was not lawful at any stage and so he should be released on bail. In this connection he drew my attention to the ruling reported in Kedar v. State 1977 All WC 205 : 1977 Cri LJ 1230. In this case also the accused had surrendered in the Court of a magistrate and the Magistrate had remanded him to jail custody. It was held in that case that the order passed by the Magistrate remanding the accused to jail custody could not be an o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »