Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2009)23VST520(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The petitioners herein are civil and electrical contractors. During the relevant assessment year 2005-06, they have executed works contracts of civil and electrical nature. The petitioners are liable to tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contract under Section 3F of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 7D of the Act has issued compounding scheme in respect of civil and electrical contracts for the assessment year 2005-06. Under such scheme in respect of civil contracts, the tax was payable at the rate of one per cent on the total receipt after allowing deduction of the value of the goods supplied by the contractee and at the rate of two per cent in the case of electrical contracts.2. By Act No. 9 of 2005 with effect from May 1, 2005 Section 3H of the Act has been introduced levying State development tax at the rate not exceeding one per cent of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2010)27VST401(All)
Bharati Sapru, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the assessment year 1995-96 against the order of the Tribunal dated May 15, 2000, by which the Tribunal has imposed penalty upon the assessee for violation of the provisions of Section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.The questions of law referred to are as hereunder:1. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified by completely overlooking the principles of law that the purpose of imposition of penalty on the manufacturer of the notified goods on the stock transfer of the manufactured goods, produced out of the raw material purchased against form IIIB is only to ensure that the tax has been paid either under the U. P. Trade Tax Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act or else if it is exported. However, since the total exemption has been granted to the applicant under Section 4A of U. P. Trade Tax Act, hence neither any tax was payable by the applicant within U. P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(85)AWC2107
Vineet Saran, J.1. Considering the urgency in the matter as the recounting of votes has been ordered to be conducted today, which is by the impugned order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, this case has been taken up on board today in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 6 and 7 and Sri Vishal Tandon for the contesting respondent No. 2, Smt. Sobha Devi. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage without calling for a counter-affidavit.3. The brief facts of the present case are that in an election of Gram Pradhan held in the year 2005, the petitioner was declared elected as 'Gram Pradhan. Challenging the said election, the respondent No. 2, Smt. Sobha Devi filed an election petition bearing Election Petition No. 3 of 2005 with the prayer of recou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2125
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sapnawat, District Ghaziabad. By an order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner had been ceased Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16368 of 2008 in which a detailed reasoned interim order dated 1.4.2008 had been passed whereby the effect and operation of the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad had been stayed. The said writ petition is pending and the interim order is also continuing. While passing the interim order dated 1.4.2008, this Court had permitted that the formal enquiry may go on and be concluded expeditiously. Thereafter, a final enquiry report was submitted on 12.5.2008. The District Magistrate then issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.5.2008, which was served on the petitioner on 27.5.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 11.6.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2196
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed by Kisan Educational Society, Basti through its Secretary Vishnu Pratap Singh son of late Pratap Narain Singh, resident of Babhanganwan, Gandhi Nagar, District Basti, which was initially registered in the year 1950 bearing registration No. 639/I-4531. It is claimed that the petitioner society runs an educational institution known as Shiv Harsh Kisan Post Graduate College, Basti which is affiliated to Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and also runs an Intermediate College, namely, Kisan Intermediate College, Basti.3. It is claimed that for the purpose of establishment and running of a degree college the Kisan Educational Society, Basti was registered.4. It is further claimed that the Management of the Kisan Degree College, Basti was superseded in the year 1982 by the State Government by appointing the District Magistrate as its authorized controller under Section 58 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2454
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Shri K. Ajit, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. These intra court appeals arise from the judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Hon'ble single Judge whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33147 of 2001 of the petitioners has been dismissed.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that respondent No. 2, i.e., District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat got an advertisement published in February, 1999 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Lekhpal (pay scale 350-590). The petitioners-appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') appeared in the written examination held on 5.11.2000, the result whereof was declared on 5.10.2001. The petitioners result was withheld for using unfairmeans. They filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33147 of 2001 wherein an interim order was passed on 6.12.2001 directing the respondents to interview the petitioners provisionally,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2533
Janardan Sahai and Rakesh Sharma, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the order of learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nishit Sharma. The dispute relates to admission to Class XI, Science Stream of Aligarh Muslim University.2. The petitioner respondent in this appeal appeared in the open entrance test examination but was not selected. The petitioner then applied for admission in the discretionary quota of the Vice-Chancellor available in respect of candidates of S.M. (for outstanding sports man) and for C.A. (children of Alumini). The petitioner was not selected in the S.M. category. In the C.A. category other persons were nominated by the Vice-Chancellor but not the petitioner and the petitioner could not be admitted under that category either. The petitioner then filed writ petition giving rise to this special appeal. The petitioner's case is that in the C.A. category, he was higher up in the merit list but he was not granted admission and the quota wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2708
Ran Vijay Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and the order dated 11.5.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Annexure No. 23 and Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that one Shri Shambhu Singh who happened to be Bhumidhar of the disputed land sold 3/4 share of his holding through registered sale deed on 21.6.1976 to the petitioner No. 1 and remaining 1/4 share sold in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi, the petitioner No. 2.3. For the part of the said holding a suit was filed by the petitioner No. 1 under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act) against the petitioner No. 2. The said suit was decreed on 16.7.1979 and the several lots were carved out in favour of each petitioner. Plot No. 7 in the said lot was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 and plot No. 19 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3496
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.2. This petition has been filed for quashing a notice dated 9-2-2009 under Section 3(3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereafter the 'Goondas Act') issued by the ADM (F & R), J.P. Nagar. The impugned notice mentions two items. The first is a case at case crime No. 704 of 2008 under Sections 30 and 504 IPC, PS Mandi Dhanora, District J.P. Nagar. In this case, the petitioner along with his companions are, said to have murdered Nafees, brother of the informant (Anis Ahmad) with country-made pistols. A charge-sheet has been filed in this case on 28-5-2009. The second case is at case crime No. 727 of 2008 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention). Act, 1986, (hereafter referred to as the 'Gangsters Act'), P.S. Dhanora, District J.P. Nagar.3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the case under the Gangster...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2009All120; 2009(85)AWC1825
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to get a writ or direction issued in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 11th December, 2008, passed by the respondent No. 2 and notice dated 14th October, 2008 issued under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act').2. It appears to this Court that by an order dated 26th November, 2008, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61141 of 2008, M/s. Ace Media Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Branch Manager and Ors. this Bench was pleased to pass following order:The contention of the petitioners is that there is an order of Debt Recovery Tribunal in favour of the respondents-bank and against the said order appeal is pending and, therefore, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!