Allahabad Court May 1978 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 Vs. Munshi Lal Hari Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC174(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, referred the following question for our opinion :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions) was legally justified to hold that the dealer was not importer when he received back the goods for disposal from another State ?2. The facts necessary for disposing of this reference fall within a narrow compass. The assessment year involved is 1965-66 in which the assessee purchased 300 tins of vegetable oil at Budaun from Messrs. Mool Chand Raghubir Saran. This transaction was entered into by the assessee on behalf of an ex-U. P. dealer, Messrs. Gopilal Banshidhar, Jaipur, and the entire goods were despatched by the assessee to the Jaipur dealer. The Jaipur dealer, however, after receiving the consignment sent them back to the assessee. The assessee thereafter sold the goods in U. P. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assesse...
Khanna Coke Industries and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Judici ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1978
Reported in: [1987]64STC335(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. In these petitions the only controversy is whether coke briquettes manufactured by the assessee are declared goods as contemplated in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as such liable to lower rate of tax as provided in Section 15 of the Act.2. On the finding that coke briquettes are manufactured by mechanically pressing the mixture of coal-dust, multani mitti and molasses, the Sales Tax Officer held it to be a product of coal and an unclassified item. The rate of tax under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act in respect of goods other than those referred in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the section at the point of sale by manufacturer or importer is seven per cent. It is not disputed that coke briquettes are not mentioned in any schedule or notification issued by the State Government.3. Section 14(ia) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as under :14. It is hereby declared that the following goods are of special importance in inter State trade ...
irshad Ahmad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1464
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. This application in revision arises out of the proceedings under Section 147, Cr. P.C. It appears that on the report of the station Officer Kotwali that there existed a dispute between the Hindu and Muslim sections of the community, on the question of user of Sati Ka Math, which was likely to endanger and generate communal tension, proceedings under Section 147, Cr. P.C. were undertaken. Since the case was considered of emergency, a prayer was also made for the attachment of the disputed property during the enquiry. The Magistrate passed an order on the receipt of the report as follows:Index, register case under Section 147 and put up. Issue notices.This was an administrative order. In fact another order had been passed on 25th Dec., 1973. That was the preliminary order in the case. That order also incorporates that since there was a likelihood of a breach of peace, and the case was one of emergency, the property in dispute was attached and the parties were restr...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Basic Shoe Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC152(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee manufactures and sells shoes. For the assessment year 1966-67, it disclosed gross sales at Rs. 6,57,366 of which U. P. sales were of Rs. 2,57,738. All these sales were made by the assessee to the State Trading Corporation at Agra. The corporation paid the entire agreed price to the assessee. Subsequently, the corporation paid a sum of Rs. 21,316 to the assessee on account of devaluation of currency. The assessing authority brought this amount to tax as part of the turnover of the assessee in respect of sale of shoes on the footing that this amount formed part of the sale consideration. This view was upheld in appeal. The appellate authority held that the assessee received the amount because the price of goods in terms of rupees had increased.2. The assessee went up in revision. The revising authority found :It seems that the State Trading Corporation, Agra, made purchases of shoes from the assessee. Thereafter the shoes were exported outside India. O...
Consumers Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC276(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee carried on the business, inter alia, of manufacture and sale of bricks. For the assessment year 1958-59, it returned an amount of Rs. 28,141.96 in its returns but with a note that this amount was not liable to sales tax because it was received by way of compensation. The assessing authority did not accept this submission and brought a sum of Rs. 47,173.45 to tax. This view was upheld in appeal as well as in revision.2. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the price of the goods which had been misappropriated by the stockists of the assessee would be sale price so as to constitute the turnover of the assessee ?3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a co-operative society. It received 24 wagons of coal. Of this, 12 wagons were given by it to Messrs. Fakir Chand Baijnath for manufacturing bricks. The arrangement was that Messr...
Beni Prasad and ors. Vs. Smt. Ujji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All421
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising from a suit for cancellation of an instrument of sale executed by one Smt. Ujji in favour of the second defendant on the 18th April, 1963 in respect of a large number of plots of agricultural land and a house detailed at the foot of the plaint. The plaintiffs' allegations were that they were members of a Hindu joint family, in which Smt. Ujji was a widowed daughter of Jokhu Lal; that the property in suit was ancestral and it was got entered in the name of Smt. Ujji after the death of Jokhu' Lal for securing her maintenance; that in fact she was not the owner and was not in actual possession over any part of the land; that the sale-deed executed was fictitious and was motivated by a desire to deprive the plaintiffs of their right to the property. The defendants contested the suit on the grounds, among others that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was not maintainable.2. Of the issues framed...
Adya Pd. and ors. Vs. Durga Ji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All451
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over certain land described at the foot of the plaint.2. It was the admitted case of the parties that the land was appurtenant to house No. 320 of Gopiganj Bazar, Pargana Bhadoi, district Varanasi. The dimensions of the land were given as 10 on the north, 16 on the south, 97 on the east and 94 on the west. There were two defendants in the suit and they are the two defendant respondents in this appeal, namely, Shri Durga Ji, through Shri Sita Ram Mali, Panda Shri Durga Ji, and Shri Sita Ram son of Shri Durga Mali. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following seven issues :--1. Whether the house standing on the land in suit belonged to Kamta? If not to whom the house belonged? 2. Whether the house in suit was purchased by Anant Ram from Kamta? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in suit? 4. Whether ...
Dr. Syed Maqsood Ali Vs. Smt. Zahara Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All434
ORDERMahavir Singh, J. 1. This is a revision against the order of the 1st Additional District Judge Unnao dismissing his appeal against the order of the Insolvency Judge rejecting his application for being adjudged an insolvent.2. Relevant facts are that the applicant filed a petition under Section 10/13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being adjudged an insolvent. His allegations were that he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 11,900/-which comprised of the following four (sic) (five ?) debts:--1. U. P. State through Deputy Commissioner (i) District Industries Officer for starting an industry ......Rs. 4000/- (ii) District Live Stock Officer, Unnaofor starting poultry farm ...Rs. 500/-Both the debts were secured by a mortgage of a house. 2. Unsecured loans:(i) Smt. Zahra Begum, wife of the applicant-dower debt ......Rs. 5000/- (ii) Siddiq Ahmad on pronote datedJanuary, 1965 ......Rs. 2000/- (iii) Sales tax Department ......Rs. 400/- He further...
Dhanya Kumar JaIn Vs. Rajendra Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All469
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for mandatoryinjunction for closing down certain water spouts and ventilators. There were two defendants, Smt. Chandra Prabha, who is the second respondent, and Sri Dhanya Kumar Jain, defendant-appellant. The trial court decreed the suit and the lower appellate court has confirmed that decree. Smt. Chandra Prabha was concerned with one of the water spouts. She has not appealed. Sri Sinha learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has confined his case to the decree directing the closure of the ventilators. He urges that even if the ventilators were recently constructed, the defendant-appellant had constructed them in his own wall. The only complaint was that they overlooked the plaintiffs Chabutra. But these facts alone did not give the plaintiff a right to have them closed. A person has a right to use his own property in any manner he likes and it has not been shown in the present case that the opening of the ventilator...
Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., Gorakhpur Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All405; [1979]116ITR387(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. One ofthe questions which arose in this reference was whether interest paid on arrears of sugarcane purchase tax was an allowable deduction. At the hearing of this reference learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on Kamlapat Moti Lal v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1975 UPTC 408 : 1975 Tax LR 1036 in support of his submission that interest so paid was a deductible expenditure.2. The Bench hearing this reference felt that M/s. Kamlapat Moti Lal's case 1975 Tax LR 1036 (All) requires reconsideration. It hence referred the caseto a Full Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.3. In Kamlapat's case 1975 Tax LR 1036 this Court laid down two main propositions.-(1) The U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act did not call interest as penalty. It made provision for interest as well as penalty separately, and It also made independent provisions for their recovery. Interest was not penalty. In carrying on a business an assessee may not be able to discharge his finan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »