Allahabad Court July 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.
Arun Kumar Rastogi and anr. Vs. Chandra Kumari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC46; [1988]63CompCas266(All)
B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. These connected appeals under Section 110D, Motor Vehicles Act, are directed against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Allahabad) dated December 20, 1977.2. The claim petition was filed by Smt. Chandra Kumari alleging that her husband, Jaskaran Singh, deceased, was aged about 28 years. He was employed as a driver in truck No. UTE 1447 belonging to Arun Kumar Rastogi and his brother, the appellants. The salary paid was Rs. 400 per month besides Rs. 10 per day as diet allowance. On October 1, 1976, at about 11 p.m., Jaskaran Singh was driving the truck loaded with bricks from the brick kiln of Iradatganj, District Banda, when it met with an accident having dashed against a tree. Jaskaran Singh died instantaneously on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The owners of the truck resisted the claim pleading that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased and that they are not liable to...
Western India Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC181(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This is a revision filed by the assessee under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated February 20, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur, dismissing the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act.2. The assessee deals in pumping set and machinery parts. After the original assessment was passed it was discovered that machinery parts worth Rs. 66,886.26 supplied to the North Eastern Railway escaped assessment for which proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were initiated. Ultimately assessment order was passed by the assessing authority which was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) in the first appeal by the assessee but the appeal failed. The assessee feeling further aggrieved preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal.3. I have heard Sri V.D. Singh, learn...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sardara Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR723(All)
1. These five Wealth-tax Applications, namely, WTR Nos. 96, 97, 98, 106 and 170 of 1984 raise indentical questions.2. They, as such, are being decided by a common order. The prayer contained in these applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is that the Tribunal may be called upon to refer to this court for its opinion the three questions mentioned therein. As regards question No. 1 we are of the opinion that it does not arise from the appellate order of the Tribunal. The remaining questions Nos. 2 and 3 are being reproduced herein below as questions Nos. 1 and 2 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could reasonably come to a finding that no benami transaction was involved in this case ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in directing the exclusion of the value of 208 acres of land from the total wealth of the assessee ?' 3. WTA No. 96 of 1984 is in regard to assessment year 1971-72, WTA No. 97 of 1984 is in regard...
Jagannath Manni Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC390(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The assessee was carrying on business in kerana, dry fruits, etc. In the assessment year 1974-75 regular assessment was made by the assessing authority under Rule 41(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules by an order dated 28th August, 1976. It is pertinent to mention that in the original assessment proceedings the turnover of 'makhana' was assessed under the category of 'dry fruits' under Notification No. 6628 dated 1st December, 1973. This Court in the case of Hardeo Das Satya Narain v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1978 UPTC 789 held that makhana is to be taxed as unclassified item. It appears that a notice dated 23rd March, 1979 under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the assessee on the ground that certain turnover has escaped assessment. Ultimately the assessing authority by order dated 20th September, 1979 held that the turnover of makhana should be taxed as unclassified item in view of the decision of this Court in ...
Makhali Wine Store Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC416(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The assessee was carrying on business in various items including the selling of Indian made foreign liquor. The assessee did not file return for the months of May, June, July and August, 1983 and consequently it was assessed under Rule 41(6) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules for the aforesaid months by the Sales Tax Officer. In the first appeal filed by the assessee the turnover fixed by the assessing authority was reduced by fifty per cent. The assessee feeling aggrieved preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the same. The assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.2. Mr. M. S. Negi, learned counsel for the assessee, contended that the assessee was not given any notice before passing the assessment order by the assessing authority and as such the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer is vitiated on that ground alone. Counsel for the parties agr...
Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC260
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The petitioner is manufacturing medicinal preparations including Pudin Kara. It made an application to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for permission to manufacture Pudin Hara in the State of Uttar Pradesh. By letter of the year 1979, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, the Excise Commissioner informed the Collector, Ghaziabad, that the petitioner had been granted permission to prepare certain medicines, inter alia, subject to the condition that it shall supply samples as contemplated by Rule 60(3) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. Its copy was forwarded to the petitioner also. It further appears that the petitioner brought it to the notice of the Excise Commissioner that it had been manufacturing Pudin Hara from before 1st April, 1957 and consequently as contemplated by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 60 of the Rules Pudin Hara was to be considered to be an unrestricted...
Shree Lakshmi Ice Mills, Muzaffarnagar Vs. Executive Engineer, Electri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All115
A.N. Verma, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned bills of demand in respect of electricity consumed by the petitioner.2. Shortly stated the petitioner's case is that under the impugned bills the respondents are demanding from the petitioner an amount which is far in excess of the actual consumption as indicated by the meter fixed by the respondent. It is contended that the respondent is not entitled to demand any amount in Excess of the electricity consumption as indicated by the meter installed by the respondent.3. In the counter-affidavit, the stand taken is that the respondent discovered from a reading of the meter fixed on the premises of the petitioner Mills that the actual consumption indicated by the meter was far below the real consumption. It was found that the main meter installed in the petitioner mill's premises for recording power consumption was running slow as compared to actual consumption of electricit...
Hariyana Steel Supply Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC214(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The assessee is a dealer in iron and steel. It appears that the original assessment was completed by the assessing authority. Subsequently proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated in which the turnover of Rs. 77,381.20 was subjected to tax by the Sales Tax Officer. The first appeal filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was allowed. The Revenue feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Kanpur, which by order dated 28th November, 1985, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and restored that of the Sales Tax Officer. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision.2. The main dispute in the present revision is regarding issuance of form 3-Kha from the purchasing dealer to the assessee. It ap...
Arvind Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC412(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These three revisions under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the order dated 25th January, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-I, relating to assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. Since all the revisions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The applicant was the sole proprietorship concern of late Sri Vishnu Narain Dixit. He died on August 6, 1980, leaving behind his widow. The disclosed turnovers of the assessee-applicant for the assessment years in question under the Act were rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment was passed. Having failed in the first appeals the assessee preferred second appeals before the Tribunal which too met the same fate. Hence these revisions.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, did not challenge the rejection o...
indra Prakash Sita Ram Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC332(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. Assessee feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 22nd March, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, has come to this Court in the instant revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. It appears that two cross appeals were filed one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue against the judgment passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly, regarding the assessment year 1982-83. From the facts stated in the order of the Tribunal it appears that 13th January, 1986, was the date fixed in the appeal on the request of the assessee and on that date the assessee did not appear and the appeal was heard ex parte. It is pertinent to mention here that though the appeal is alleged to have been heard on 13th January, 1986, yet no judgment was delivered till 22nd March, 1986. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, urged that the assessee did not receive any intimation about the date ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »