Allahabad Court October 1986 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. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC341(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21st February, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad. For the assessment year 1971-72 original assessment order was passed by the assessing authority on 25th March, 1976. Immediately on the next day a notice dated 26th March, 1976, under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the assessee. The assessee challenged the validity of this notice right up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded the following findings of fact:(1) that the notice issued under Section 21 of the Act was for the purposes of verification of certain information which was available with the Sales Tax Officer,(2) that the said information related to a Moradabad party. Apparently, it was not related to the assessee,(3) that assessment records were not made available to the Tribunal.2. That besides the above no other evidence or material was produced before the Tribunal to show any other b...
Omprakash Goel Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribun ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)LC43(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT354(All)
ORDER1. As there was difference of opinion amongst the members constituting the Tribunal we think it appropriate to call upon the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case with regard to the following question and refer the same to this Court :'Whether the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked against the applicant when the alleged 5 pieces of gold were not recovered in the presence of the applicant or from his possession, custody or control.' ...
Sita Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ645
ORDERS.I. Jafri, J.1. Heard Sri Manzarul Islam, Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicant Sita Ram and also Sri Jagdish Tiwari. learned Counsel for the State at a great length, Sri Jagdish Tiwari has also filed counter-affidavit.2. Applicant Sita Ram is in Jail in connection with offences Under Section 302/323, I.P.C. in Crime No. 221 of 1985, Police Station, Badshahpur, District Jaunpur.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has filed a certified copy of the order-sheet of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in connection with the present case showing thereby that the case was put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur commencing from 18-1-1986 to 17-10-86 on several dates. The order-sheet dt. 17-10-1986 shows that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur has fixed 31-10-1986 for committing the accused to the Court of Session. A perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet further goes to show that the charge sheet in the instant case was filed in the Court...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Girdhari Lal Football Maker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC287(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24th September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench, Meerut. The short question that arises in the present case is as to whether the opposite party dealer is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Admittedly, the opposite party manufactures only football and volleyball covers. It did not manufacture bladders used in football and volleyball.2. The contention raised by the learned standing counsel is that for the purpose of being entitled to the exemption under Section 5(3) of the Act the dealer must manufacture football or volleyball bladders as well as covers. If he does not do so, he is not entitled to the exemption claimed by him. Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the dealer, however, states that the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned standing counsel is not warranted by law in view of the provisions ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Pramod and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC247(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This sales tax revision has been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order dated 21st November, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh Bench, Aligarh.2. The admitted facts in the case are that Faridabad ., Madras, for the supply of three wagons of cement. Accordingly builty was also prepared in the name of the aforesaid Ghaziabad party. Subsequently, however, this Ghaziabad party endorsed the builty in favour of the dealer-opposite party. It is also admitted by the counsel for the parties that cement is taxable at the point of sale either at the hands of manufacturer or importer.3. In the present case the controversy is as to whether the dealer-opposite party is an importer or not. According to the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax in view of Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act since the sale has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods, therefore it is a cas...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(All)212; [1987]167ITR591(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60 with the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1958.2. M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'), is a limited company. The Income-tax Officer passed an order under Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), on the ground that the assessee was not a company in which the public were substantially interested. It ought to have distributed out of its profits for this year Rs. 4,80,990 being 45% of the distributable income. As against this, it distributed only Rs. 3,55,000. There was thus a deficit of Rs. 1,25,990 for which the assessee had no satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, he levied additional super-tax of Rs. 2,64,130 3. The assessee was aggrieved and appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the assessee's contention that the Income-tax Officer wrongly invoked Se...
Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. U.P. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1988All133
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J.1. This civil revision has been preferred against the order dt. 27-2-1986 by which the IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur City, has allowed the application condoning the delay occasioned in filing the appeal.2. The brief factsare that a suit was filed by one Gur Prasad, later on substituted by the present applicant Smt. Laxmi Devi, for granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the State of UP, and others from interfering with her peaceful possession of the land. The suit was decreed by the learned Additional Munsif, Kanpur City vide his judgment anddecreedt, 26-3-1984. Copies of the judgmentand decree were applied by the opposite parties on 28-3-1984. Such copies were ready on 23-4-1984 and were delivered on 24-4-1984. The appeal along with an application for the condonation of delay under Section 5, Limitation Act, was filed on 14-12-1984. A delay of 205 days which was caused was thus sought to be condoned. The court below while exercising powers un...
Prem Pal Shastri Vs. Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All221
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 the Act 1951). by the petitioner, who was a candidate in the general. elections to the U.P. Legislative Assembly, held in February-March. 1985. from 349 Nidhauli Kalan Assembly Constituency, district Etah. The last date for filing nomination papers was 6-2-1985 and the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers was 9-2-1985. The poll in the aforesaid constituency took place on 5-3-1985 and the respondent, who contested the election on Lok Dal symbol, was declared elected on 6th Man. 1985.2. The prayer in the election petition is that the election of the respondent from the aforesaid constituency be declared void and be set aside on the ground that the result of the election, in so far as, it concerns the respondent was materially affected because of the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, of the Act. 1951. of the Conduct of Elections Rules. 1961 (the ...
Har NaraIn Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All319
ORDEROm Prakash, J. 1. The application A-59 has been made by the respondent under Order 6, Rule 16 and Section 151 C.P.C praying that the paragraphs Nos. 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 31 to 34 be struck out as they do not contain material facts and do not disclose the cause of action and that the election petition be dismissed in entirety, as the petitioner could not be allowed to lead evidence on the allegations contained in the aforesaid paragraphs. 2. Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection that this application is not maintainable, inasmuch as an application A-7 dated7-10-1985 exactly with the same prayer had been made by the respondent under Order 6, Rule 16, read with Order 7, Rule 11 and Sections 82, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act, 1951). The said application was disposed of on 13-12-1985 and was partly allowed, as only para 18 of the election petition was ordered to be struck out The cont...
Trilok Chandra Seth (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(All)159; [1987]167ITR564(All); [1987]30TAXMAN483(All)
1. The petitioner who is the karta of the Hindu undivided family (specified) styled as Trilok Chandra Seth has filed this writ petition. He owns business in the name and style of M/s. Lala Kashi Nath Seth Jewellers, Bara Bazar, Bareilly. The reliefs claimed through this writ petition are (1) for quashing of the notice dated September 8, 1986, issued under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, and (2) for a writ of mandamus directing the Wealth-tax Officer, respondent No. 2, not to take any action in pursuance of the aforesaid notice. 2. For the assessment year in question, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the firm, M/s. Kashi Nath Jewellers. The petitioner was aggrieved by the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was partly allowed. Thereafter, notice under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act dated March 10/14, 1986, for the assessment years 1982-83and 1983-84 was served on the petitioner on March 27, 1986. The peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »