Andhra Pradesh Court November 1972 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.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sri Rama Laxmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1972
Reported in: [1975]35STC601(AP)
Sriramulu, J.1. The short question that arises in this tax revision case, filed by the State, is whether the revisional order made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is time-barred ?2. The material facts may briefly be stated: The assessee-firm is a dealer in rice. During the course of inter-State trade, the dealer sold rice from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The turnover of those sales, during the assessment year 1963-64, amounted to Rs. 6,29,707.85. The Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'C. S. T. Act'), made the assessment against the dealer for the assessment year 1963-64, on 15th March, 1965, on a turnover of Rs. 6,36,092.85 including the value of gunny bags of Rs. 6,385 and calculated the tax thereon at 2 per cent.3. Aggrieved by the assessment so made, the assessee-dealer filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Two contentions were raised by the dealer b...
Tholasi Venkatamunuswamy Chetty and Sons and ors. Vs. the Commercial T ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1972
Reported in: [1974]33STC497(AP)
M. Krishna Rao, J.1. These writ petitions involve a common question for determination and hence they may be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment. All the petitioners are commission agents. They sell jaggery which was entrusted to them by their principals who are agriculturists and who grow sugarcane which is converted into jaggery.2. It is now settled law that the commission agent is liable to pay sales tax only if his principal is liable. In all these cases, the petitioners allege that their principals are not liable to pay sales tax as they do not carry on any business in jaggery. It is stated that their principals grow sugarcane in their own lands merely to derive agricultural income and that in order to convert it into a marketable commodity not liable to speedy deterioration and easy of transport, they convert their own sugarcane into jaggery for the purpose of deriving their agricultural income and not with the object of carrying on any business. It is, therefore, urged ...
Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao Vs. Thadwarthi Balakotiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973AP342
Obul Reddi, J.1. The question referred to this Bench of seven Judges by a Division Bench to which two of us ( Obul Reddi and Madhava Reddy, JJ. ) were members, is'Whether a plaintiff can lay action for recovery of the amount advanced by him basing on the original cause of action when the negotiable instrument evidencing the transaction is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. '2. The necessity to refer the question to a larger Bench arose as a result of the view expressed by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. ( as he then was ) in Mohd. Jamal Saheb v. Munnar Begum, : AIR1964AP188 , which does not accord with the ruling of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshi Ammal, ILR ( 1938 ) Mad 933 = ( AIR 1938 Mad 785 ( FB ) ). The learned Judge, Gopal Rao Ekbote, held that the plaintiff can have his money back through the document is in-admissible in evidence because it is in-sufficiently stamped and that Section 91 of the Evidence Act is no bar to the p...
Smt. R.D. Chand Vs. Central Government and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1972
Reported in: [1977]108ITR717(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J. 1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated January 15, 1971, and to direct the 1st respondent, the Central Government, to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner on January 16, 1970, in accordance with law. 2. What happened in the case was that one Prof. Kishenchand died on January 13, 1961. The petitioner is his widow. She is also the administrator of his property. 3. The Assistant Controller by his order dated December 30, 1968, assessed the estate duty leviable at Rs. 2,64,726*91. The assessment order was served upon the petitioner in January, 1969. The petitioner thereafter applied under Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the Central Government on February 15, 1969, requesting the Government to take over the property of the equal value in order to discharge the estate duty payable by her. Since no reply was received she filed another application on Janua...
Ali Mohammed Khusro and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector Land Acq ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1974AP18
Obul Reddi, J.1. The only question that arises for determination in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder (appellants) can execute the decree obtained by the deceased decree-holder in land acquisition proceedings awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 3.61.816-75 to the claimant-decree-holder in respect of the lands acquired from her and the costs awarded to her under the said decree, without obtaining a succession certificate under S. 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act.2. The facts necessary for determining the question involved are these : The Second Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in O. P. No. 111 of 1966, by his judgment dated 25-9-1968, awarded compensation of Rupees 3,61.816-75 and costs of Rs. 2,002/- to one Fareedunnissa Begum, the claimant in those proceedings. The Government deposited the compensation amount into Court, but she died before she could make an application for withdrawal of the amount. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›