Andhra Pradesh Court January 1977 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.
Hindustan Agencies Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Hyderabad Divisio ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC384(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The question that arises in each of these four cases is whether the product of Hindustan Lever Limited called 'Vimf' sold under that trade name in the market can be considered to be a soap for the`purpose of entry 48 in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General`Sales Tax Act. By virtue of Section 5(2)(a), the sales tax at the rate mentioned in the schedule has to be levied only at the point of first sale and`not for subsequent sales. The petitioners in the writ petitions are dealers in 'Vim' and the question arose in the sales tax proceedings for the`relevant assessment years as to whether 'Vim' could be considered a soap.2. Item 48 in the First Schedule merely mentions 'soaps' and the`tax is to be levied at the point of first sale in the State at the rate of`5 paise in the rupee. The Commercial Tax Officer held that 'Vim' is not a soap; whereas the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, before`whom the appeal was filed, held that 'Vim' is a soap. Ultimat...
Atluri Brahmanandam Vs. Tahsildar Gannavaram Taluk, Krishna District a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977AP196
Alladi Kuppuswami, J. 1. The Division Bench which heard these writ petitions has framed the following questions for consideration by a Full Bench :'Whether excise duty leviable on arrack is part of the issue price which can be collected for unlifted quantity as laid down in R. 15 of the Vend Rules If it is so is R. 15 valid ?'Several other contentions were raised before the learned Judges by the petitioners but they were repelled. It is therefore, stated in their order that the final result of the writ petitions in so far as the question referred to the fuller bench is concerned would depend upon the answer that would be given by the full bench and except in regard to that, the writ petitions are dismissed.2. The petitioner in each of these cases is a successful bidder at an auction held in respect of a lease of an arrack shop. He draws arrack from the Government Distillery from time to time paying what is known as 'issue price' and sells arrack in pursuance of a licence granted to him...
income Tax Officer Vs. Sri Vanalakshmi Rice Mills and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(AP)47
B. J. Divan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed by the Income tax Officer, b. Ward, Masulipatnam, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed on June 30, 1975. The writ petition arises under the following circumstances :2. The first respondent in these proceedings is the assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, B.Ward, Masulipatnam. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee should have filed the return of income on or before June 30, 1965. However, he filed the retrun Income on July 20, 1966. The Income-tax Officer issued a show cause notice proposing to levy penalty under S. 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for late filing of the return. The assessees explanation was that the delay in filing the return was because of the dissensions among the partners. This explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer who levied the penalty of Rs. 6,417/- under S. 271(1)(a) of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner co...
N. Narasimha Rao Vs. the Commissioner and Spl. Officer In-charge, Adon ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977AP380
A. Kuppuswami, J. 1. The petitioner was granted a licence on 7-11-1974 for a period of six months under Section 7 of the Places of Public Resort Act (II of 1888). It was renewed from time to time. Finally the petitioner applied on 4-10-1976 for renewal of his licence for a period of 8 months commencing from 1-11-1976. The respondent by his order dated 7-10-1976 rejected the application in the following terms:'In the interests of the public it is not advisable to continue the same. Hence the application for renewal is rejected.' The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the said order.2. Under Section 6 of the Act upon receipt of an application for a licence the authority to whom the application is made has to inspect the place or building in respect of which a licence is required and may call on the appellant to make any alteration or addition in the material or arrangement of the enclosure or building or in the precautions for the safety of the public to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›