Allahabad Court August 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.
Gupta Sales Agency Vs. Sales Tax Officer,check Post/Mobile Squad and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC161(All)
N.D. Ojha and R.K. Gulati, JJ.1. The petitioner, which is a partnership concern, carried on business in electric goods and cycle parts. The petitioner purchased some goods from certain dealers at New Delhi which were being transported by a truck of M/s. Bombay Madras Roadlines, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that these goods were being transported under the two invoices both dated 30th June, 1986. The truck carrying the consignment was checked at the Check Post, Ghaziabad and was detained. Subsequently after giving a notice to show cause to the transporters, those goods were seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post/Mobile Squad, Ghaziabad.2. The value of the entire goods which were being carried by the truck, was put by the Sales Tax Officer at Rs. 2,99,130.00. Subsequently it appears that the value of the goods belonging to the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,42,400 and the petitioner was required to furnish 40 per cent of the aforesaid amount as cash security for getting t...
Naik Ratan Bahadur Rai Vs. Station Commander, Dehradun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1988All137
A.N. Verma, J.1. This petition was originally filed by ex-Naik Ratan Bahadur Rai. He died during the pendency of the petition whereupon an application for substitution was filed by the heirs, namely, Smt. Tulsa Devi, his widow and Km. Laxmi, the daughter of the original petitioner. Notices were directed to be issued to the respondent. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed. Substitution is accordingly allowed.2. The petition isdirected againstan order dt. 25-11-76 purporting to have been passed under R. 155(2) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules 1971. By this order, the petitioner was asked to voluntarily remove his alleged unauthorised occupation immediately from the premises covered by survey No. 243 and 243/8, 2 G.R.C. Bazar, Dehradun. This order was preceded by a notice issued under R. 155(1) whereby the petitioner was asked to remove his occupation from the aforesaid premise within 14 days failing which he would be evicted by force. In this notice, it was st...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janrudhan Das (Decd.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR806(All)
1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the following three questions of law arise out of the order of Tribunal:'(1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the date of transfer should be taken as June 26, 1977 and not June 6, 1977, is vitiated in law inasmuch as the Tribunal has ignored the evidence which was relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that capital gain does not arise unless the compensation is rceeived and on that basis in computing the period of two years for purposes of exemption under Section 54B from the date of receipt of the compensation ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount paid on account of tube-well and standing trees should be taken to have been paid for purchase of the agricultural land ?' 2. We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid three question...
Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Ahmad Miya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All335
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that the impugned order dated April, 1986 deserves to be set aside. By this order, the trial Judge has directed stay of the subsequent suit of the applicant (O.S. No. 119 of 1985) till the disposal of suit No. 68 of 1977 filed by the first two opposite parties Ahmad Miya and Idu Miya. He has also rejected the prayer made by the present applicant for consolidation of the two suits under Rule 1 of Order IV-A, C.P.C.2. An ex parte decree had been passed against the present applicant in suit No. 68 of 1977. The relief claimed in that suit is that the two plaintiffs, who are admittedly elder brothers of applicant Mohd Yusuf, were the exclusive owners of the property in suit That decree was later set aside by the trial Court The order was affirmed by this Court and, thereafter, by the Supreme Court in Nov., 1985. Ultimately, the suit was directed to be tried on merits. The relief sought in suit No. 68 of ...
GramIn Bhatta Udyog Sangh Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC465(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated 28th February, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut, relating to assessment year 1977-78 arising out of proceeding under Section 21 of the Act. 2. Assessee is a society which used to receive coal for supply to its members. On the basis of the information received from the Director of Movement that the assessee had received coal against the allotment of 2,700 tons proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were initiated and they were assessed on a turnover of Rs. 3,00,000 and to a tax of Rs. 12,000. In first appeal filed by the assessee under Section 9 of the Act the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) held that proper enquiries were not made by the assessing authority in order to ascertain that the coal was actually received by the assessee and as such the case was remanded back. Assessee feeling aggrie...
Ram Autar Shastri Vs. Khurshid Alam Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All279
ORDERB.D. Agrawal, J.1. Election in the Lok Sabha Constituency No. 68 Farrukhabad took place as part of the General Elections in Nov./Dec. 1984. Last date for filing nomination was Nov. 27, 1984. The scrutiny took place on 28th Nov. Withdrawal could be had up to 30th Nov. Poll took place on Dec. 24, 1984 followed by couting counting on Dec. 28 and 29th. The respondent was declared elected defeating the thirteen rival candidates including the petitioner. The respondent secured 2,36,892 votes; the votes obtained by the petitioner were 1177. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the election of the respondent on grounds stated in paras 5 of the petition as under : --(A) Because the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the respondent, has been materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 33 and 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the conduct of Election Rules. The material facts and particulars regarding this ground are...
Vishwa Nath Jagdish Prasad and Company and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC121(All)
H.N. Seth, C.J.1. The applicants who were respondents in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 436 (Tax) of 1978 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 438 (Tax) of 1978 pray that the order passed by this Court on the two petitions on 9th of August, 1982, directing them to refund certain amounts to the petitioners soon after 27th of September, 1982, be reviewed.2. Certain consignments of soyabean oil belonging to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 436 (Tax) of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 438 (Tax) of 1978 were seized by the sales tax authorities in exercise of the powers under Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as it stood on 12th of August, 1978. The petitioners furnished cash securities amounting to Rs. 16,800 and Rs. 5,600 and got the seized goods released. They then filed the two writ petitions before this Court claiming, inter alia, that the provisions of Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act were ultra vires. According to them seizure of their goods and the entire proceedings following ...
Pratap NaraIn Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(All)234; [1987]163ITR604(All)
N.D. Ojha J.1. This is an assessee's application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The prayer contained in this application is that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer the eight questions, mentioned in the application to this court for its opinion. When this applicationwas taken up, counsel for the applicant informed us that relief in regard to the items covered by questions Nos. 7 and 8 has since been granted to the applicant by the Tribunal and as such these questions do not survive.2. As regards questions Nos. 1 to 6, which are, indeed, connected questions, the submission made by counsel for the applicant is that the finding of the Tribunal that the persons, who, according to the applicant, had deposited various amounts of money with the applicant, had no means wherefrom they could have made the deposits alleged to have been made by them, is perverse, inasmuch as n...
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Private Limited Vs. Collector of Centr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)LC396(Allahabad); 1986(26)ELT501(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The petitioner has been manufacturing 'Dant Manjan Lal' and a question seems to have been raised as to whether excise duty was payable thereon or not. An order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad on 25th August, 1981 that excise duty was payable. Against this order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise on 27th July, 1983 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the Order of remand. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise decided the matter in pursuance of the order of remand on 19th February, 1986. A writ petition being writ petition No. 253 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner in this Court asserting that the adjudication dated 19th February, 1986 was bad inasmuch as the petitioner had not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the said order. The writ petition was allowe...
ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(10)LC423(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT373(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. The petitioners were manufacturers of sugar by vacuum pan process. By means of this petition the petitioners challenged the legality of the demand notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 7,21,827/-. The demand has been raised on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly allowed excise rebate in the like amount under the relevant notification dated 28th September, 1972.2. In the exercise of power conferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government granted exemptions to sugar factories manufacturing sugar from certain amounts of excise duties leviable thereon to be calculated in terms of the table appended to the notification, a true copy whereof is annexure 1 to the petition. According to this table factories producing sugar during the period commencing 1st of October, 1972 and ending with the 30th day of November, 1972 which was in excess of the quantit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »