Andhra Pradesh Court October 1976 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.
Sikakollu Subbarao and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC572(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The same question arises in both these cases, viz., whether tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake are liable for the levy of tax under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or whether they are exempted under the Fourth Schedule of the Act. The matter first came up for hearing before Alladi Kuppuswami, J., sitting single and by his order dated 7th June, 1976, he referred the matter to a Division Bench because he felt some difficulty in following the decision of Ramachandra Raju, J., sitting single, in Sikkakollu Subba Rao & Co. v. State of A. P. [1975] 36 S.T.C. 457. The decision of Ramachandra Raju, J., dealt with the question of tobacco seed and not tobacco seed oil or tobacco seed cake. But, it is obvious that if tobacco seed is not tobacco within the meaning of the relevant entry in the Fourth Schedule of the Act, much less can tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake be said to be tobacco within the meaning...
S.M. Brothers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC182(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The principal question in each of these four writ petitions is whether seat covers are accessories or not. It is clear in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.C. Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1418, that the term 'accessories' in the schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is used to describe goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition. 'Accessories' are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. The deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other uses also. It is its general or predominant user which determines the category in which an article will fall. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it is clear that seat covers will also be 'accessories' and since powers of revision have been utilised to bri...
Osmania College Vs. D.V. Subba Sastry and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ487AP
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. The first and the principal point that wan debated before us in writ appeal is about the correctness of Harijander Singh v. Kakatiya Medical College (1974) 1 A.L.T. 192 A.I.R. 1975 A.P. 35. Sri Shiv Shanker appearing for the appellant has mounted a severe criticism on the correctness of the view taken by the Full Bench in that case and said that in any event it has ceased to be good law in view of what the Supreme Court decided in later cases. Though other questions did arise, this point occupied substantial portion of the arguments.2. This is how the matter arose. The appellant is the Osmania College, Kurnool, represented by its correspondent. It is affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, which is the 4th respondent. There is no dispute that it is an institution of a minority community which gets the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution It is recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and has been receiving full teaching giant Respondents 1...
S. M. Brothers Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-15-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(AP)0154B
Divan, C.J. - The principal question in each of these four writ petitions is whether seat covers are accessories or not. It is clear in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in A.C. Industries vs. State of A.P., that the term 'accessories' in the schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is used to describe goods which may have been manufactured for use as an aid or addition. 'Accessories' are not necessarily confined to particular machines for which they may serve as aids. The same item may be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument. The deciding factor is the predominant or ordinary purpose or use. It is not enough to show that the article can be put to other suses also. It is its general or predominant user which determines the category in which an article will fall. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it is clear that seat covers will also be 'accessories' and since powers of revision have been utilised to bring the turnover in respect be said ...
P.P. Metal Corporation Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]75STC393(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is a partnership firm carrying on business in Bombay. The firm purchases metals, etc., in the State of Andhra Pradesh also in the course of its business. It is a registered dealer both under the Maharashtra General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The Naval Stores Depot at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, a section or part of Central Government in Defence Department, through M/s. Murray & Co., Madras, had put up for sale by auction on 30th October, 1974, at the depot at Visakhapatnam, several items of articles for sale. As many as 30 items were notified in the notice of sale. Item No. 16 in the notice referred to 'Imported Wet Batteries' approximate size 66 x 36 x 100 cms., weight of each battery : 505 kgs., total weight of batteries : 2,27,755 kgs., location of 448 Nos. at Energy Bloc and 3 Nos. at NSD-V, in all 451 in number. According to the petitioner, these batteries are unserviceable and may not be used as batteries for generat...
Mannem Peda Narisi Reddi Vs. Maddivenkayya (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977AP234
1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Guntur, reversing the order and decree of the learned District Munsiff, Sattenapalli, and setting aside the Court auction sale and confirmation of the sale in execution of a decree.2. The relevant facts are as follows : The respondents 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- by mortgaging the suit house in favour of the Arvapalli Venkata Seshadri. The mortgagee filed a suit O.S. No. 437/1957, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Sattenapalli, on the foot of mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree on 12-2-1958 and final decree on 4-9-1968. The respondents 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. In E. P. 1342/1958, the hypotheca was brought to sale. The sale proclamation was drawn up on 21-2-1959. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 3,500/-. The sale was to be held on 8-6-1959. At that stage the respondents 1 and 2 (Judgment-debtors) filed an application E. A. No. 90...
B. Subbiah Vs. Andhra Handloom Weavers' Co-op Society Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ37AP
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Technical Assistant by the first respondent, the Andhra-Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. which has now been statutorily known as Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. It was the duty of the petitioner to procure stock of handloom cloth for the first respondent-society from primary societies. The first respondent-society alleged that in the course of his employment the petitioner procured on two occasions power-loom cloth for the society. The first respondent-society, therefore, felt that the petitioner had committed an act of misconduct. They, therefore, charge-sheeted him and levelled against him two charges of identical nature relating to his misconduct in procuring under the guise of handloom cloth powerloom cloth. The petitioner was given an opportunity of tendering his explanation to the charges. In his explanation he raised three pleas. Firstly, he contended that the stock of handloom cloth which ac...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›