Skip to content

Allahabad Court December 2003 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.

Dec 01 2003

Tarachand and anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-01-2003

Reported in: 2004(2)AWC1236

ORDERS. N. Srivastava, J.1. By an order dated 30th July, 2003, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits in accordance with law. The said order was affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision by an order dated 20.10.2003. These two orders are impugned in the present writ petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the appeal preferred by the contesting respondents was not maintainable inasmuch as it was filed after notification under Section 52 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') dated 8.2.1986 and the appeal cannot be heard and decided on merits as it was not pending on the date of publication of notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel further urged that the order, considering the case of contesting respondents on merit and remanding the matter to be considered on merits by Consolidation Officer, was without juris...


Dec 01 2003

K.B. Hides Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-01-2003

Reported in: [2005]140STC205(All)

M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated August 14, 2002, annexure 4 to the writ petition and for a declaration that the U.P. Trade Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the amended Rules') in so far as they provide that forms III-A and III-B shall be valid only for a limited time are ultra vires the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of leather and it is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.4. Under Section 4-B of the Act the Legislature has given certain benefit to certain manufacturers for payment of concessional rate of tax or exemption of tax on purchases of certain goods. Clause (b) of Section 4-B(1) of the Act reads as follows :'Where any goods liable to tax under any other provision of this Act are sold by a dealer to another dealer and such other dealer furnishe...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial