Allahabad Court January 1987 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.
Hanuman Yadav and ors. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC491
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16-2-1978, passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh, acting as a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in case No. 82 of 1976. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the applicants before him had failed to prove that the opposite party had caused the accident and consequent death of their father and as such he dismissed the claim petition with costs.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are that a claim petition was moved before the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh by the four sons and heirs of Sarju Yadav, who died as a result of an accident caused by a Motor Vehicle. According to the allegations of the petitioners, on 10-3-76, at about 4 p.m., their father Sarju Yadav, who was resident of village Bhaluwana, Pargana Gopalpur. Tehsil Sagri, district Azamgarh, was standing on the Patri of Azamgarh-Faizabad road in village Hichchanpatti, police station Kandharapur, when opposite party Dinesh...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sheikhupur, Budaun Vs. State of Uttar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All298
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sheikhupur, Budaun, challenging the assessment orders made under Section 6, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as' the Cess Act').2. The notice dated 22-2-1986 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is the assessment of water cess calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned therein, the total of which was Rs. 1,22,890.32 paise. The relevant details of this notice are being given below : Current AssessmentAssessment Period : from April 1978 toDecember 1985. In exercise of my power under S. 6, Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, Ihereby assess the amount of cess payable by you for the above period asindicated below :Purposefor which water consumed.Consumptionof water taken for the purpose of assessment (in kilometres)Grossamount of cess assessed(in Rs.)Netamount of cess assessed and payable (in...
Ravindra and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC191; 1987(13)LC510(Allahabad); 1988(33)ELT296(All)
ORDER1. On 19-7-1986, tobacco, which, according to the petitioner, was hukka tobacco, was seized by respondent 3, i.e. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gauhati. Since the tobacco has not been released despite requests made by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed for Mandamus directing the respondents to release the same as according to the petitioner no excise duty was leviable on hukka tobacco.2. A counter-affidavit and thereafter a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondents I and 2, stating, amongst others, that it was not hukka tobacco, but chewing tobacco, and, as such, it was leviable.3. We are not required to go into this controversy at this stage of the proceedings. We consider it appropriate that the authority, whosoever may be entitled to look into this controversy, may do so, preferably within three months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order.4. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed....
Lilawati and ors. Vs. Rukhmani Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC127
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. V.S. Kulshrestha, the then Vth Additional District Judge, Moradabad on 11-2-78 in connection with Claim Compensation Application No. 12 of 1976. Mr. Kulshrestha was acting as Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act.Originally the claim was putforth by Narayan son of Likhan Kumhar and his wife Smt. Rampia alias Ramtia. They are the father and mother of the deceased Ghan Shiam who was a minor. It appears that during the course of the hearing of the claim, Narayan died and his married daughters-1/1 and 1/2 Smt. Lilawati and Smt. Tarawati and his minor children Pooran, Jilal and Km. Hansmukhi were brought on the record as bis heirs.The brief facts of the matter were that Ghan Shiam who was a minor aged about 15 years, was killed on 10-3-1976 near the shop of Gauri Shankar on the road side which runs between Chaufaha Budh Ka Bazar and Dharamshala Gulzarimal in Moradabad. Truck No. USN 3059 owned by S...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC103(All)
K.C. Agarwal and R.K. Gulati, JJ.1. The petitioner; M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipur, Haridwar, U.P. is a 'Government company' within the meaning of the said expression appearing in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1966. It has different manufacturing units at different places in different States. The major manufacturing units are at :1. Haridwar (U.P.)2. Trichy (Tamil Nadu)3. Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh)4. Bhopal (M.P.)2. It is engaged, inter alia, in designing, manufacturing, supply, installation and commissioning of power plant equipments. In different years the petitioner's Haridwar unit supplied component parts to Trichy unit and to Hyderabad unit. Trichy unit and Hyderabad unit were the executing units for the supply of the boiler packages and turbo generating package respectively. As is alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the component parts were sent by the petitioner at the site outside the State of U.P. on the directions of the executing unit. It is alle...
Apex Traders Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC261(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. These are three 'revisions relating to the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1983-84 under the Central Sales Tax Act against a combined order of the Tribunal dated 31st March, 1986.2. The assessee dealing in brass wares claimed exemption within the meaning of the proviso to Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'). Sub-section (1) of Section 6 says that every dealer shall with effect from the date fixed by the Central Government be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified. The proviso to Sub-section (1) says that a dealer shall not be liable to pay tax under this Act on any sale of goods, which in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 5, is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 says that a sale or purchase of goods shall...
Banarasi Das Chatar SaIn Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(11)LC509(Allahabad)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee for the assesseement year 1969-70.2. A very piquant situation has taken place in this case. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) there were two appeals one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue. The appeal of the assessee was heard first by the Tribunal and the appeal of the Revenue was heard later. Whereas, in the appeal of the assessee the turnover was reduced, it was enhanced in the appeal of the Revenue.3. The instant revision has been filed by the assessee against a later decision passed by the Tribunal in the appeal of the Revenue. Learned Counsel for the assessee has been very fair in making the offer that this anomaly can be removed only by setting aside both the orders of the Tribunal passed in the appeal of the assessee as well as in the appeal of the Revenue and direct the Tribunal to decide both the appeals together afresh. The Revenue has no objection to the offer of the assessee's counsel. Th...
Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(33)ELT289(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. M/s. Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. Baheri, district Bareilly, which was subsequently, converted into M/s. Kesar Enterprises filed the present writ petition for quashing of the order of the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bareilly, dated 19-12-1983.2. The brief facts of the case are these. M/s. Kesar Sugar Works Ltd., Baheri, district Bareilly is a factory engaged in manufacturing sugar. It manufactured 40896.03 quintals of sugar during the months of May and June, 1973 and applied for a rebate amounting to Rs. 12,26,880.90 under Notification No. 203/72 dated 28-9-1972 as amended by Notification No. 91/73 dated 1-3-1973. This rebate amount was allowed to be credited in their personal ledger account vide letter dated 7-9-1973.3. Subsequently, it was found as per Notification No. 203/72 dated 28-9-1972 as amended by Notification No. 91/73 dated 1-3-1973 that the rebate was admissible for the excess production during the corresponding period of the preceding yea...
Satya Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC112; 1987(13)LC443(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT666(All)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the assessment orders as well as recovery proceedings in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 of the excise duty due under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The details of the amount have been given in paragraph 1(c)(i) of the counter affidavit as under :-S.No. D.D.I. and date Amount.1. 458034 dated 24.9.1977 Rs. 1,040.002. 27355 dated 22.8.1978 Rs. 4,875.003. 27356 dated 22.9.1978 Rs. 597.08Total : Rs. 6,512.08Learned counsel for the petitioner urged two points before us. One of them was about the validity of the assessment orders and the second about the recovery proceedings.2. So far as the question of validity of the assessment orders is concerned, we are of the opinion that this controversy is not- open to the petitioner. The assessment orders have been passed during the life time of the petitioner's father, Consequently, they became final and the petitioner ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Premier Precision Tools Manufacturers Lt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC151(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. Raising a small point, this revision is filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 1975-76 against the order of the Tribunal dated 28th September, 1985, arising under the Central Sales Tax Act. 2. On the inter-State sales effected by the assessee, the tax was imposed at the rate of 10 per cent by the assessing officer. The dispute went up right up to the stage of the Tribunal against the order of the assessment, but the rate of tax was not disputed at any stage. The Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, then made an application under Section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, to the Tribunal on 25th November, 1981 (annexure 5). The order of the Tribunal in second appeal against the assessment order is dated 28th March, 1980 (annexure 4). The application under Section 22 was disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 28th September, 1985 (annexure 6). The Tribunal rejected the application of the Revenue saying that there was no mistake apparent from the recor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »