Allahabad Court December 1982 Judgments
A.L. Birla Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-24-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ741
V.N. Misra, J.1. These are four connected revisions by A. L. Birla against the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1980 of Sri P. C. Saxena, Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in four Criminal Appeals which were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction of the applicant under Section 22 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, and the sentence imposed on him was maintained.2. The applicant A. L. Birla was General Manager of L. H. Sugar Factory, Pilibhit. In the year 1977 before the crushing season for sugarcane started he made an application to the Collector for grant of licence to fourteen persons whom he wanted to employ as Weighment Clerks at different purchasing centres of this sugar factory and paid the necessary licence fee. The Collector could not decide this application because there were certain complaints against some of these persons nominated as Weighment Clerks and the factory started working and these Weighment Clerks also started funct...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pratipal Kaur Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1982
Reported in: [1984]145ITR19(All); [1984]17TAXMAN127(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961, filed by Smt. Pratipal Kaur against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 30th April, 1975, dismissing the appeal. 2. Govind Dev Bhartiya was the owner of house No. 111/275, Harsha-nagar, Kanpur. By the sale deed 26th July, 1973, which was registered on 28th July, 1973, he sold the house to Smt. Pratipal Kaur, the appellant, for Rs. 48,000. On the aforesaid transfer, the Competent Authority received information from the Sub-Registrar, Kanpur, under Form No. 37G. On receipt of this intimation, the Competent Authority made enquiries through an I.T. inspector, who reported that the fair market value of the house was Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. one lakh). This estimate was based on the finding that the value of the land on which the house was constructed was Rs. 60,000 at the rate of Rs. 150 per square yard and the value of the building was Rs. 40,000. On receipt of this report of the inspector, the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gupta Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(All)324; [1983]142ITR123(All); [1983]13TAXMAN305(All)
H.N. Seth. J.1. The assessee, M/s. Gupta Stores, Katra, Allahabad, is a registered firm. Originally it was constituted by four partners including one Smt. Laxmi Devi who died on 26th October, 1976. Thereafter, the remaining partners carried on the business of the firm in the same name and style. For the assessment year 1977-78 the assessee filed two separate returns, one for the period April 1, 1976, to October 26, 1976, and the other for the period October 27, 1976, to March 31, 1977, and claimed that two separate assessments should be made for that year. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that as after the death of Sint. Laxmi Devi the remaining partners had continued the business as a going concern and had taken over all the assets and liabilities of the previous firm, it was a case where merely a change in the constitution of the firm had taken place and hence a single assessment for the entire period could be made. The view taken by the ITO was upheld in appe...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Traders Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC299(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is an assessee's revision.2. A penalty was imposed on the assessee under the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(g) on 21st August, 1979, for having failed to obtain registration for the year 1975-76. When the notice of the proceedings was given to the assessee, the assessee submitted an explanation.3. The Sales Tax Officer while noticing the explanation, did not attach weight to it and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500.4. The assessee made a representation but no representation lay against an order imposing a penalty.5. The State filed a revision which was later converted into an appeal against an order imposing the penalty on the ground that the penalty imposed was illegal as under the law, as it then stood in 1975-76. Section 15-A(1)(g) provided for a penalty amounting to Rs. 4,800.6. The Tribunal only examined the question as to whether the penalty imposed was in accordance with law or not. It found that a penalty of Rs. 4,800 could have been imposed on the assessee acco...
Tag this Judgment!ishtiaq Ali Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1180
K.S. Varma, J. 1. For the reasons to be stated later on we dismissed the writ petition on 15-12-1982. We now propose to give reasons for dismissing the petition.2. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order passed by the State Government. Annexure 6 to the writ petition. By this order the petitioner has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974. The prayer made in the. writ petition is that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in 'pursuance of the impugned order dated 16-6-1982. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to return to the petitioner the seized amount of Rs. 14,700/- and the 11 watches details of which are given in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. During the course of arguments, it was conceded that the petitioner has not been arrested so far.3. The Deputy Government Advocate appeari...
Tag this Judgment!Asghear Ali Mohammad Ilyas and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)223; [1983]143ITR898(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. The petitioner has a cane crusher. He exercised an option as provided under Section 3(1A) of the Act as a result of which he became liable to pay a fixed amount of purchase tax under the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has paid the tax for the year 1977-78. The petitioner was sent a notice by the assessing authority that the petitioner's application for being taxed on the assumed basis had been rejected by the Accountant-General and that he was required to pay tax on his actual consumption of sugarcane. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 50,460 85 in the treasury. This order was dated September 25, 1979. The petitioner's case was that he never received the order. A copy of the order has been filed along with the counter-affidavit. On that there is a written endorsement that the petitioner had refused to take the copy of the order. Subsequently, the petitioner was communicated another order dated March 14, 1980, which was to the same effect...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC334(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has filed this revision.2. In the assessment year 1977-78, a penalty was imposed by the assessing authority upon the assessee under the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessee appealed unsuccessfully to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). Thereafter the assessee went to the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal.3. The penalty has been imposed on the assessee because he has not shown that he had a godown in his application for registration.4. The Tribunal has found that the assessee, who deals in foodgrains, had not mentioned the godown but he had no guilty intention in concealing the existence of the godown and had made a mistake in the application for registration by not mentioning it. It was found that the assessee had mentioned the godown in the stock register and had mentioned the same in his application to the Regional Food Controller.5. In view of the finding of the Tribunal that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ736
D.N. Jha, J.1. The applicant Sunder Lai moved an application in this Court for being released on bail. The sole question on which the learned Counsel pressed the application was that the detention of the applicant in jail after commitment was illegal as at the time of commitment the warrant issued for purposes of detention of the applicant was for an indefinite period and rendered the detention of the applicant illegal. The learned single Judge after considering the various authorities and the law interpreted in Rajendra Gosain v. Suptd,, District Jail, Gonda 1981 Cri LJ 802 (All) was of the view that Rajendra Gosain's case required reconsideration. He then referred this case for decision by a Full Bench. The learned single Judge in order to avoid delay and expedite the disposal of the bail application referred the whole case for consideration by the Bench.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that a report was lodged by one Sant Ram on 13-5-1981 at 6.45 A.M. against five persons...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC236(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. These sales tax revisions have been filed by the assessee and pertain to the years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.2. The assessee is a contractor and supplies stone ballasts to the Northern Railway. He made tenders for the supply of ballasts to the railways. The various tenders of the assessee were opened on 13th October, 1970, 23rd March, 1971, 24th September, 1971, 7th July, 1972, 9th March, 1973, 6th May, 1975, and 7th September, 1973. These tenders were accepted by the Railway Administiation and the assessee -made supplies. The railways paid the assessee for the work done by him. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the entire amount received by the assessee from the railways to sales tax. The assessee appealed. The assessee's appeal for the years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1976-77 were partly allowed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who held that the assessee was only liable to tax on the price of ballast supplied by...
Tag this Judgment!Shantimoy Ray Vs. Competent Authority, Iac of I.T. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(All)250; [1984]145ITR365(All); [1983]15TAXMAN121(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner, Shantimoy Ray, who is a tenant in one of the shops located in House No. 30 (old No. 16, Chowk, Allahabad, seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th January, 1976, passed by the IAC of Income-tax (Competent Authority) under Section 269F(6), I.T. Act, for acquisition of the aforementioned building as also that of the notice dated 19th May, 1979, issued by him under Section 269-I(1) of the Act requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the shop in his tenancy. The petitioner seeks further relief by way of injuncting the first two respondents, namely, IAC of Income-tax and Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Allahabad, from ejecting him form the said shop.2. The building bearing House No. 30 (old No. 16), Chowk, Allahabad, is situated in a busy commercial area of Allahabad and it has a number of tenements which are being used for commercial purposes. Some time in the year 1947, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »