Andhra Pradesh Court August 1957 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.
Batchu Sreeramulu Chetty Vs. State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1957
Reported in: [1958]9STC215(AP)
K. Subba Rao, C.J. 1. The decision on the question raised in this revision will have far-reaching consequences. It is therefore necessary that this case should be decided by a Full Bench. We refer the following question to the Full Bench :-'Whether rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, is invalid by reason of the non-compliance of the condition laid down in sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act ?'2. In pursuance of the above-said order, the case came on for hearing before the Full Bench.Jaganmohan Reddy, J.3. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench is :-'Whether rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, is invalid by reason of the non-compliance of the condition laid down in sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act ?'4. The assessee is a dealer in groceries and pulses etc., at Nellore. Having elected to be assessed for the year 1952-53 under rule 13 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, he su...
In Re: Darla Ramadass
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1377; [1957]8STC823(AP)
A.S. Godara1. This is a revision on behalf of the accused against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, convicting the accused under section 15(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The accused before me was a person who was doing business in rice and food-grains and a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. The charge against him is that he did not submit the returns with regard to this business turnover as required by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.2. The relevant rule in this regard is rule 11 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939. That rule says that every dealer who is liable to submit a return under rule 6 shall, on or before the 1st day of May in every year, submit to the assessing authority a return showing the actual gross and net turnover for the preceding year and the amounts collected by way of tax during tha...
In Re: Ganisetti Venkanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1460
ORDERManohar Pershad, J.1. This is a revision on behalf of the accused against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhimavaram dated 28-11-1955 dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate, Bhimavaram, holding him guilty under Section 408, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The facts which gave rise to this revision are ; the accused was working as a salesman of Ithampudi Co-operative Marketing Society at Kantheru from 11-11--1948 to 30-6-1950.The procedure adopted by the society for the issue of cloth to the salesman and taking remittances of the sale proceeds from the salesman was as follows : A register called salesman liability register was maintained at the Head Office. The salesman made out indents under his signature and handed them over at the Head Office where the cloth was issued on each indent. The cloth issued on indents was entered in the salesman liability register on the date of issue in terms of it...
In Re: Dusari Veerraju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP29; 1959CriLJ25
ORDERManohar Pershad, J. 1. This is a revision on behalf of the accused against the Judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapuram, dated 31-10-1955 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Magistrate.2. The facts which give rise to this petition are : The accused were charged under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Madras Prohibition Act 10 of 1937, The allegation was that on 13-7-1955 at about 11.30 a.m. the head constable of Veleshwaram Police Out-post deposed to receiving the information that illicit distillation was being done in the 'puntha' leading from Appanapalam to Narendrapatnam. He proceeded to that place and on arrival at the scene of offence, he found the petitioners working a still,On seeing the raiders, the petitioners tool, to their heels. The still was dismantled, and the articles were seized. The prosecution examined 3 witnesses. The accused did not produce any defence evidence. The Sub-Magistrate on the evidence produced found the accused guilty under ...
In Re: K.V. Murthi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ143
ORDERChandka Reddy, J.1. The accused was convicted by the 3rd Class Bench Magistrate, Bandar, under Sections 249, 321 (9) read with Section 313 of the District Municipalities Act and sentenced to a tine of Rs. 5/- with a default imprisonment of two days. The case against the accused was that he was running a coffee hotel without obtaining the requisite licence.While not denying this, the plea of the accused was that he could not be required to obtain a licence as the Frenchpet in which he was carrying on the business was not included within the Municipality of Bandar by a notification as required by Section 4 of the District Municipalities Act, that a notification under Section 249 requiring the obtaining of a licence was also not published, that the prosecution was premature, as he was given some time for paying the amount and that the prosecution was launched before the expiry of that date. All these objections were overruled and the petitioner was convicted and this was confirmed on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›