Allahabad Court November 1988 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. R.S. Steel Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC207(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax for the assessment year 1975-76 is directed against the order dated 10th April, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal.2. The first submission made by the Standing Counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Sales Tax is that the Tribunal is not justified in affirming the acceptance of account books of the assessee. From a perusal of the order passed by the first appellate authority, I find that the account books were rejected on the basis of difference between the returned turnover and the turnover as shown in the account books. The other ground for rejection of account books was that the assessee made purchases of some imported goods without form 31. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had accepted the explanation of the assessee regarding the said difference between returned and books version of turnover and had also held on the facts of the case and the various registers maintained by the assessee that there has b...
Sriram Jaiswal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)75CTR(All)41; [1989]176ITR261(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. The petitioner carried on a business in manufacture and sale of carpets as sole proprietor of the concern, Sriram Carpet Industries, Gopiganj, district Varanasi. A search and seizure operation was conducted on July 22, 23, 1987, at the principal place of business, Gopiganj, district Varanasi, at the shopping complex, Maldahia, and at the residential premises, D-64/143, Shastri Nagar, Sigra, Varanasi, of the petitioner. During the search and seizure operation, gold ornaments, silver ornaments, cash, etc., were seized under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act') and a restraint order was passed under Section 132(3) of the Act, for want of verification in respect of the following assets :Rs.(i)Stock of woollen yarn, etc.7,00,855(ii)Stock of 85 carpets5,58,603 12,59,4582. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer, Bhadohi, Varanasi, passed an order under Section 132(5) determining the total tax liability for the assessment years 1981-82, 1983-84, 1984-85,...
Kisan Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Deoria and ors. Vs. Iiird A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All168
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J. 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugned order dt. 12th Apr., 1988 passed by III Additional Distt. Judge Deoria under Order 1, RuIe 10(2) of the Civil P.C., 1908 (for short the Code), allowing the revision and directing the plaintiff, the present petitioner to implead Mr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 as one of the defendants, is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.2. It appears that the petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction against one Mainuddin Khan restraining him from interfering with the function of Sri ArvindPandey as officiating Principal of the institution (vide para 4 of the petition). Petitioner No. 3 was acting Head Master whereas Dr. Nazaruddin Ahmad petitioner No. 2 was alleged Manager of Kisan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, and Ram Pravesh Prasad was Adhyaksh of Kisan Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti Banjaria Bazar. It is noticeable that Mainuddin the allegedhead master has not been implea...
Brij Mohan Agarwal Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR561]; (1990)ILLJ529All
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. The petitioner Brij Mohan Agarwal is arguing the matter in person. He has been heard on many days. He challenges the award of the Labour Court (I) U. P. Sarvodaya Napar, Kanpur. The award is dated December 22, 1975 (1985?). The petitioner was a probationer. The period of probation was for three months. He had worked for 17 days and the probationary period was drawn to a close, the asserts, abruptly. Messrs Hindustan Chains Private Limited, Kanpur, the employer, paid the petitionerfor the duration of the period when he worked. This was 17 days. The petitioner was not satisfied with the action of the employer. He raised an industrial dispute after conciliation between the employer and the employee failed. Initially the State declined to refer the matter for adjudication in 1978, on being satisfied that it was not a matter which needs to be referred before the Labour Court. Three years later apparently the petitioner persuaded the State Government that the matter shou...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Manohar Lal Dudeja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: [1991]189ITR186(All); [1989]42TAXMAN153(All)
A. Banerji, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in respect of a document, as it felt a doubt as to whether the stamp duty on the document was chargeable as on a settlement or as on a trust. The following question has been framed by the authority on which our opinion has been sought:'Whether the document under reference comes within the definition of a settlement as given in Section 2(24) of the Indian Stamp Act as chargeable with duty under article 58 of Schedule 1B thereof or is a declaration of trust chargeable under article 64 of Schedule 1B to the said Act ?'At the very outset, we may state that it appears to as that the question framed proceeds on an incorrect basis. The question shows that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority proceeded on the basis that the instrumentunder the Stamp Act can either be a deed of 'trust' or 'settlement' only and not both. The proper question, in our opinion...
Laxmi NaraIn Pathak and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge, Gyanpur, V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All171
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J. 1. In the district of Varanasi is a village Jhakao within tahsil Gyanpur. The petitioners Messrs Laxmi Narain Pathak, Nagendra Pathak and Mahendra Pathak from this village desired an electric connection from the U.P. State Electricity Board, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The Board was about to grant an electricity connection to the petitioners. The pole from which electricity connection was to be strung had been pitched. At this stage respondents Nos. 3 and 4 Messrs Shesh Dhar Pathak and Gyan Dutt Pathak applied for an injunction before the Munsif, Gyanpur by filing a suit No. 119 of 1984; Shesh Dhar Pathak and another v. Laxmi Narain and others seeking a permanent injunction along with an ad interim order that the petitioners, defendants before the trial court, be restrained from taking electricity wires straight from the pole to their house. An ad interim injunction was granted by the trial court and the electricity connection sought by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›