Allahabad Court April 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mukti Nath Singh Ram Lakhan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC381(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Having found that the assessment order was passed, in respect of the assessee who was not on record and who had not filed any return, without notice to him, in consequence of an information received from the District Supply Office, the Additional Judge (Revisions) quashed the order but referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned additional revising authority was justified in annulling the assessment order for 1967-68 for want of notice ?2. At the time of hearing of the reference reliance was placed by the learned standing counsel on Bhandari and Company (Private) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1969] 23 S.T.C. 324 and India Leather House v. Sales Tax Officer 1972 U.P.T.C. 416. On behalf of the assessee, reliance was placed on Faqir Chand v. Sales Tax Officer 1971 A.L.J. 25. As the Division Bench was of the opinion that there was some conflict in the two Division Benches, namely, the B...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Krishan Sharma Vs. Dr. Mithilesh Kumari Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All316
Gopi Nath, J.1. This is a husband's appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge Meerut, dated 28-10-1976 allowing the wife's appeal in a petition for divorce and decreeing the same. The petition was filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.2. Parties are Brahmins by caste. They were married according to Hindu rites on 24-11-1962. The appellant was 26 and the respondent 22 years of age at the time of marriage. Their fathers were high placed officers in the Education Department. The appellant's father was the Principal of the Government College at Nainital while the respondent's father was an officer posted at Lucknow. Their traditional faith in religion and its rituals is not in doubt. The appellant's parents were conservative in views and had an orthodox way of living. The appellant at the time of marriage, was an Assistant Conservator of Forest while the respondent was a student of the M. B. B. S. When the respondent's father approached the appellant's father for th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indra Prasad Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC326(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Revising Authority, Varanasi, has referred the following question for opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, lal and chura fall under the category of cooked food or are foodgrains as held by the revising authority 2. This reference is being treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.3. The matter stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Mohan Lal Goverdhan Das, Jawaharganj, Mathura 1978 U.P.T.C. 404, wherein it has been held that chirwa and kheel were different forms of rice, one being made by flattening rice and the other by parching it. Lal is not kheel but is made by the same process and is puffed rice obtained by parching.4. The view taken is in consonance with the Supreme Court in the case of Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 945, wherein it has been held that the word 'rice' is wide enough to include parche...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Nirankari Engineering
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1979
Reported in: [1982]51STC197(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The revising authority has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the revising authority was justified in holding that iron shafts were taxable as iron and steel 2. The assessee was a dealer in iron bars (shafts). Sales tax was paid at the time of purchase and the question arose as to whether he was liable to pay sales tax on the subsequent sales made by him. The Sales Tax Officer held that iron bars (shafts) sold by him did not fall in the category of iron and steel as referred to in Section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act and as such, taxed the turnover. The appeal filed by the assessee on the point failed. He then filed a revision. The revising authority has taken the view that iron bars (shafts) sold by the assessee was nothing but iron and steel and has excluded the turnover of this commodity from payment of tax.3. Section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act in the relevant year read...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kankani Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC101(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The revising authority has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, chandras is liable to tax as an unclassified goods or is liable to tax as painter's material under Notification No. ST-1365/X-990-56 dated 1st April, 1960 ?2. The Sales Tax Officer has found that chandras is used for making paint so as to give a shine to the painted material. In this view he held that chandras was taxable as a painting material. The appeal filed by the assessee on this point succeeded. The revising authority has held that it was neither paint nor varnish as it could not be mixed with either of them, and was used simply for giving a shining appearance to polished surfaces and, hence, not a painting material.3. Item 16 of Notification No. ST-1365/X dated 1st April, 1960, is to the following effect:Paints and varnishes and all painter's materials.4. The Hindi version of the notification runs thus:Pai...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Sri Kishan Kumar Vs. Arora and Co. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All240
P.N. Goel, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against the order dated 8-11-1969 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, in execution of Civil Appeal No. 410 of 1967.2. The appellant's l/5th share in a house was put to sale on 25-10-1966. It was sold for a sum of Rs. 800/-. Thereafter the appellant filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C.3. The appellant took three objections--(1) the share of the appellant in the house was not duly attached according to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 54 (2), C. P. C.(2) the appellant was not served with a notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C. P. C., and(3) the value of his share was Rupees 3000/-.4. The executing court did not find substance in any of the objections. Before the lower appellate court only one point was pressed that the property sold was not attached according to law.5. Order XXI, Rule 54 (1), C. P. C. lays down that the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Laikunnissah Vs. Hari Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All63
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for setting aside the sale of two rooms of a house in execution of the decree in suit No. 36 of 1962. 2. Smt. Laikunnissah, defendant-appellant, was the decree-holder in the earlier suit No. 36 of 1962 in execution of which the two rooms in question were sold. The decree was for arrears of rent of a property tenanted by Shiv Dahin Ram, the pro forma respondent No. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Hari Prasad and the pro forma-respondent No. 3 Parmanand are the sons of Shiv Dahin Ram. The plaintiff-respondent Hari Prasad's father's name was wrongly shown as Shiv Tahal Ram in the memorandum of appeal. The mistake occurred because in the decree of the lower appellate Court also the name of the father of Hari Prasad, plaintiff-appellant, before the lower appellate Court, was shown as Shiv Tahal Ram. In the decree of the trial court as well as the plaint, Hari Prasad's father's name is shown as Shiv Dhain Ram. On the request...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrabali and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1218
S.C. Mathur, J.1. This is an application purporting to be under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for recalling of the judgment dated 23rd February 1978 made by Hon'ble S. K. Kaul, J. in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1976 whereby he dismissed the appeal of applicant Ram Surat against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kheri by his judgment and order dated 13th March, 1976.2. Applicant Ram Surat was tried along with Chandra Bali and Shamsud-din in the court of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheri. All the three accused persons were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge by his order referred to above sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Against this judgment and order two appeals were preferred in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1976 was preferred by Shamsuddin while Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1976 was preferred by Chandrabali and applicant Ram Surat....
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ583
S.C. Mathur, J.1. Through this application the applicants have prayed for permission to compromise the offence.2. The applicants were prosecuted for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 307/149 of the I. P. C. They were convicted and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Against this conviction and sentence the applicants preferred appeal to this Court. By judgment and order dated 3-10-1978 I set aside the conviction of the applicants under Section 307 of the Penal Code; instead I convicted the applicants under Sections 323 and 324 of the I. P. C.3. After the above judgment had been signed by me the present application was moved by the applicants on 19-10-1978. Along with the application the applicants presented compromise which bore the signatures of the injured Ram Gopal and the present four applicants who were convicted by me.4. The above application has been opposed on behalf of the State by the learned Government Advocate on the plea that the judgment h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Murli Dhar Shiv Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1979
Reported in: [1982]49STC44(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Revising Authority, Agra, has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court :(1) Whether the sale of the mufflers effected by the assessee fell within the purview of the entry 'woollen fabrics' or within the category of 'woollen hosiery' ?(2) If the answer to the first question is that mufflers fell within the category of woollen hosiery, whether the turnover of the assessee be exempt under the notification dated 14th December, 1957, because the assessee has paid the additional excise duty on this turnover ?2. The reference is being treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law. The revision relates to the assessment year 1968-69. In that year, the assessee purchased mufflers from Dhariwal Mills on which additional excise duty had been paid. Apart from these mufflers, it also purchased mufflers made on handloom. The assessee claimed exemption on this turnover on the basis of Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14th December, 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »