Andhra Pradesh Court November 1960 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.
Mudrageda Suryanarayanamurthi Vs. Southern Agencies, Rajahmundry and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP480
Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. This C. M. A. appears to have been directed against the orders of the District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, dated 16th December, 1957, passed in E.A. 144/57 and E.P. 63/55 in O.S. 191/1953 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff Rajahmundry.2. The facts relating to this appeal may be briefly stated: -The properties of the appellant who was the judgment-debtor in E.P. 63/55 in O.S. 191/53 aforesaid, were brought to sale by the District Judge's Court, Rajahmundry in execution of the said decree and were sold on 3-8-1957. The auction-purchaser deposited 1/4th of the sale consideration on the day of the sale, and subsequently the remaining 3/4ths, within fifteen days as required by Order 21, Rule 85 C. P. C. While making the payment of the sale consideration, he also deposited a sum of Rs. 36/- towards the general stamp for the sale certificate, under the impression that all that he bad to deposit was 3 per cent of the value of the sale consideratio...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. the Firm of Illur Subbayya Chetty and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP512; [1961]12STC257(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The main question that falls for determination in this appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, is whether a suit is barred by Section 18-A of tie Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The matter has been placed before a Full Bench as it was felt that State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Krishna Coconut and Co., (1960) 1 An WR 279 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court required reconsideration. 2. The material facts of the case are within a short compass and may be briefly set out. The respondent is a firm of merchants carrying on business in groundnuts. For the accountingyears 1952-53, and 1953-54 it submitted returns in Form A and paid sales tax tentatively every month which was to be adjusted after looking into the accounts of the firm and after determiningthe total taxable turnover of the amount of taxpayable by the firm. Finally, the balance of tax was paid for the two accounti...
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1962AP75; [1961]12STC765(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.(1) This Petition raises a question as to the interpretation of Art. 286 of the Constitution and arises out of proceedings taken under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act for assessing the tax payable by the petitioners in respect of their dealings for the year 1956-57.(2) The facts of the case are susceptible of a concise statement. The Petitioners are Messrs. Singareni Collieries carrying on business in coal at Singareni Yellandu etc. now situate in the State of Andhra Pradesh, having their head office at Khairatabad, Hyderabad. For the assessment year 1956-57, they submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 3,87,03,998-2-2 and a net turnover of Rs. 2,08,38,533-5-4 claiming exemption of a turnover of Rs. 1,78,65,464-12-10 on the ground that the same represents inter-state sales falling within the words of Article 286 of the Constitution.(3) The proper Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction holding that the transaction in question constitu...
Motamarii Ramaiah and ors. Vs. Malliah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1962AP72
(1) This is a petition to revisetheorder of the District Munisif, Mabbubabad dated 24-12-1951 in E.A. No. 24 of 1951 in E. P. No. 21 of 1955 in O. S. No. 124 of 1353 F.(2) The material facts are briefly these:The petitioner are the decree-holders in O. S. No. 124/1353 F. on the file of the District Munsiff, Mahbubabad. Kumari Baliga, the third respondent here in is the sole Judgement-debtor. Respondents 2 and 3 as well as the father of the 1st respondent were brothers. In 1916, the ancestor of the petitioners and the father of respondents 2 and 3, Kumari Ramiah purchased the land in Survey 3, Kumari Ramiah purchased of land in Survey No. 355 and someother land. In 1334 Fasli the father of respondent 2 and 3 executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioners. In 1940, therewas a lease, Ex. B-11 by the petitioners in favour of the third respondent. Subsequently in 1942, there was dispute between the third respondent and the petitioners regarding possession of t...
Lakkisetti Pakkirayya Vs. Padala Navaneethamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP322
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The question posed by this appeal is whether Order 21, Rule 16 C. P. C. is applicable to the assignment of a preliminary decree.2. Umamaheswaram, J., before whom this appeal came up for hearing originally, ret erred it to a Bench, as he felt that there was a conflict of opinion between Ramanadhan v. Ramachandra, AIR 1926 Mad 1129 and Dhanapala Chettiar v. Krishna Chettiar, : AIR1955Mad165 which followed an earlier Bench decision in Venkatarama Ayyar v. Ramaswami Aiyer, ILK 44 Mad 539 : (AIR 1921 Mad 56).3. The facts culminating in the appeal are shortly these: One Padala Seshamma instituted O. S. No. 226 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nellore, for a declaration of her half share in the estate of her deceased husband, Padala Narasimhulu Chetty, for an account of the profits as detailed in schedule A(1), for recovery of her half share in the share described in schedule B and for her half share in the granite quarry described in schedules E an...
Mir MohiuddIn Alikhan Vs. Sayeedunnissa Begum and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP335
Srinivasachari, J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench has been made, by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mohd. Ahmed Ansari and Jaganmohan Reddy, J., in an appeal which arose in execution proceedings.2. One Himurunnissa Begum died leaving behind her Mohd. All Pasha, her husband, Qudrunnissa Begum her mother, Moinuddin All Khan, her brother and her daughter Syedunnissa Begum. The husband and the mother died soon after leaving the defendant Syedunnissa Begum and the plaintiffs as heirs. The deceased Himutunnissa Begum left some movable and immovable inheritable property. The plaintiff brought a suit for his share in the Matruka of the deceased Ilimutunnissa Begum as well as for his share in the dower debt of Himuttunnissa Begum which he was entitled to from the estate of her husband. The defendant Syedunnissa Begum, while admitting that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the matruka stated that her father left only movable property which was in the possession of the Sarf...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T.G. Lakshmaiah Setty and Sons
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC663(AP)
ORDERChandra Reddy, C.J. 1. In this case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the formula adopted by the department had no basis, although the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to revise the assessment made by the assessing authority.2. We do not think this conclusion of the Tribunal could be assailed before us. Obviously, the assessment is based on a guess work. The only ground that could be urged in support of the proposal to revise the assessment is that month after month the assessee was showing 'losses which could not have been the case and that he would not have continued the business was there such loss every month. We do not think that this conjecture could be a justification for seeking to revise the order of the assessing authority.3. If the Deputy Commissioner could on the material before him find data for revising the assessment, it is open to him to do so. It must be made clear that he has no juris...
Pinnepalli Sivanandappa and Bros. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC793(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. The question posed by this revision case is whether Section 12-A(6) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is confined to orders passed on merits under Section 12-A(4) of that Act and does not apply to appeals dismissed for default.2. The facts of this case lie within narrow bounds and may be stated as follows : Tax Appeal No. 388 of 1957 was dismissed for default on the 27th December, 1957, as the appellant was absent and no proper application for adjournment was filed. A subsequent application to restore it was dismissed on the 31 st January, 1958, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as it was thought that satisfactory reasons were not adduced for the absence of the appellant on the 27th December, 1957.3. Thereupon the application giving rise to this revision case was presented before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application in the view that Section 12-A (6) is attracted only to orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 12-A(4) on merits. It is this ...
A.S. Krishna and Co. (Private) Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC640(AP)
ORDERChandra Reddy, C.J. 1. Two contentions are urged in support of this petition to quash the assessment, namely, (i) that under Rule 5(1) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, it is only the sale of tobacco that could be taxed and the petitioner being a purchaser, the turnover in question is not exigible to tax; and (ii) that the transactions in dispute being in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, they are exempted under Article 286 of the Constitution.2. We do not think that we can give effect to either of the two submissions. So far as the first one is concerned, this is a point taken for the first time in the course of arguments and was not raised before any of the tribunals. Nor is it urged in the petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari. Even on the merits, this point lacks substance. It is not under Rule 5(1) that the tax is levied but it is under Rule 5(2) by and under which the purchases are liable to be taxed. We have no doubt that tobacco falls within the...
Sri Krishna and Co. and anr. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1960
Reported in: [1962]13STC61(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The notification issued by the Government of the erstwhile Hyderabad State dated 15th April, 1953, is challenged as being repugnant to Rule 5 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950.2. The contention urged is that while Rule 5 directs the levy of sales tax on agricultural produce at the purchase point, the notification directs the levy of sales tax on fresh fruits and books which are not exempted from the levy of the tax. According to the learned counsel fruits being comprehended within the expression 'agricultural produce', the notification in question is repugnant to the rule and therefore, must be struck down as ultra vires.3. Since the controversy ranges round the notification and the rule, it is useful to read them here. The notification says:-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 (XIV of 1950), the Rajpramukh is pleased to make the following modifica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »