Allahabad Court July 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.
Mahendra Radio and Television Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC298(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision has been filed against an order dated 23rd December, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal upholding the demand of security under Section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. Nobody appears for the assessee. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., has been heard.3. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a manufacturer of T.V. sets carrying on its business at Ghaziabad and has its branch office at Delhi also. On 10th April, 1986 the branch manager was found bringing 9 testing instruments from Delhi to Meerut in a car which was intercepted at Mohan Nagar check post. The said instruments were brought without form 31/32. Consequently a notice was issued under 13-A to assessee. The assessee explained that the instruments were brought for testisng T.V. sets and were not intended to be sold and the same were not brought for the purpose of business. The value of six old instruments was estimated at Rsw. 10,000 and...
Shiv Ram Singh Vs. Smt. Mangara and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All164
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. In this appeal the plaintiff appellant has challenged correctness of the order of injunction issued by the Court below : --2. The dispute relates to a title to the disputed property claimed by the plaintiff and respondent both. According to the appellant he was in possession of the entire property while defendant asserts her own possession.3. The plaintiff in his suit prayed for injunction against respondent No. 1 praying that his possession may not be disturbed. However, the application remained pending for long time but no effort was made by the plaintiff to have it decided. In the Court below the appellant urged that the aforesaid application should be decided only after the evidence of parties had been recorded. Noticing that the application had been pending for a long time the court took the view that perhaps the plaintiff does not wish to press the application and accordingly rejected the same. Since no appeal against this order has been filed the order has bec...
Delhi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC294(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. By means of this revision the assessee has challenged the order dated 31st October, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to upholding of the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs for the assessment year 1972-73.2. The point to be considered in this case is as to whether the said turnover of Rs. 20 lacs was in regard to the alleged branch transfer, relating to a branch situate at Delhi. The Sales Tax Tribunal under the impugned order stated that as a result of the enquiry it was found that there was no godown of the assessee at Delhi. Besides this, the Tribunal has also relied upon the statement of Sri Ayodhya Prasad, who was a partner of the firm M/s. Lalta Prasad Ayodhya Prasad, Delhi.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the facts that there was no godown of the assessee at Delhi have neither been disputed by the assessing of...
Fusebase Fltoro Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC366(Allahabad)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 1 to hear the petitioner and decide the prayer for waiver of the condition of the prede-posit as contained in the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner on 7.5.1688 (Annexure 11) and thereafter proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and until the question of waiver is decided, the recovery of duty from the petitioner shall remain stayed. It is also made clear that as undertaken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall attend the hearing on every date to which the appeal shall be posted without seeking any adjournment.2. A copy of this order shall be handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 24 hours....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›