Andhra Pradesh Court November 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.
Avvaru Burraiah Choultry Vs. the Assistant Collector, Tenali and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP313
ORDER1. This is an application filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari seeking the quashing of the order dated 3rd of Now., 1966 in A. T. A. No. 66/74 on the file of the Assistant Collector, Tenali, the 1st respondent herein. 2. The petitioner-choultry own on extent of A. 4.00 of wet land in Survey No. 107/1 and an extent of 20 cents of dry land in Survey No. 112/6 in Kaskurru Village, Bapatla Taluk, Guntur District. One Prasadam Ramaiah was cultivating the said lands. He died in the year 1969. Thereafter respondents 3 and 4, who are the sons of the deceased Ramaiah, became the cultivating tenants. They filed A. T. P. No. 24 of 1972 on the file of the Deputy Tahsildar, Ponnur under S. 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act 1956 and obtained a declaration that they are the cultivating tenants in respect of the aforesaid lands. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 paid the rent at the rate of 34 bags of paddy during th...
Katragadda Ramakrishnaiah Vs. Repalle Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: [1980]123ITR884(AP)
Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this civil miscellaneous second appeal are as follows: One Kotammasu Sriramamurthy, the second respondent herein, was in arrears of income-tax to the tune of Rs. 1,518.81. For recovery of the said arrear amount, a certificate was issued under Section 46 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, by the ITO, Bapatla, to the Special Deputy Collector, Vijayawada, who sent proceedings to the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Nellore. The Special Deputy Tahsildar issued a notice of demand, Ex. A-3, dated March 30, 1959, under Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act, and this notice was served on the defaulter by affixture on the house. An attachment warrant, Ex. A-2, dated March 30, 1959, was issued on the same date, and this was also served by affixture.2. While so, on June 9, 1959, the 2nd respondent executed a mortgage in respect of the said house in favour of the first respondent, the Repalle Co-operative Bank Limited, Repalle (hereinafter called ' the Bank '),...
Ramu and Co. Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: [1979]43STC510(AP)
Obul Reddi, C.J.1. These 14 revisions are directed against a common order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeals Nos. 271, 281, 282, 283, 284, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 387, 388, 419 and 451 of 1976 dated 3rd June, 1977. Two questions have been raised by Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy. the learned counsel for the petitioners : (1) that in cases of provisional assessments made beyond the year, interest demanded in respect of such provisionally assessed tax is without the authority of law, and (2) that even in respect of provisional assessments made within the year, interest cannot be calculated and collected in respect of such assessments after the close of the assessment year.2. To determine the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a few facts may be stated. The petitioners are all dealers in jaggery at Anakapalli. They submitted returns for the preceding months in form No. A-2 ...
Ramu and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(AP)122
S. Obul Reddi, C.J. - These 14 revisions are directed against a common order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeals Nos. 271, 281, 282, 283, 284, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 387, 388, 419, and 451 of 1976, dt. 3rd June, 1977. Two questions have been raised by Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; (1) that in case of provisional assessments made beyond the year, interest demanded in respect of such provisionally assessed tax is without the authority of law, and (2) that even in respect of provisional assessments made within the year, interest cannot be calculated and collected in respect of such assessments after the close of the assessment year.2. To determine the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a few facts may be stated. The petitioner are all dealers in jaggery at Anakapalli. They submitted returns for the preceding months in Form No. A-2 as r...
Anymulasetti Venkateswara Rao Vs. Konduri Sivaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978AP403
ORDER1. This revision petition is preferred from the judgement in C. M. A. 38 of 1976 on the file of the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Guntur. C. M. A. No. 38 of 1976 itself was filed against an order in I. A. 5676 of 1973 in O. S. 481/63 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Guntur I. A. 5676 of 1973 was filed by the present revisions petitioner under o. 22 R. 10, and S. 151 C. P. C. for adding him as the second plaintiff in the suit. That application was dismissed and hence he preferred C. M. A. 38/76 which was also dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Guntur.2. O. S. No. 481 of 1963 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff's Court, Guntur was a suit in which a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The plaintiff, Nagasuri Venkateswarlu filed i. A. 2723/65 for the passing of the final decree. It was held that the property could not conveniently partition Act was therefore, S. 4 of the Partition Act was attracted. An application was file...
N. Nagendra Rao and Company Vs. State of A. P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC194(AP)
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. In these two revision cases, we are not concerned with their merits as it is Mr. S. Dasaratharama Reddi's contention that the present Bench of the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over an order made by an earlier Bench.2. To appreciate the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a few relevant facts may be stated. The petitioner preferred two appeals, Tribunal Appeals Nos. 593 and 594 of 1971 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. A Bench of the Tribunal consisting of the Accounts Member and Departmental Member did not go into the merits of the appeals on the ground that they were satisfied that the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in disposing of the appeals in the manner he did. After quoting the relevant portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal observed :As an appellate authority he ought to have found a way of enforcing his superior authority and insisted upon the subordinate officer carrying out his instruct...
Bandamidi Rajaiah and Sons Vs. Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC145(AP)
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in this special appeal is whether the appellant-assessee has discharged the burden laid upon him under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to show that the goods in question, viz., moha seeds and neem seeds, have suffered tax at the point of first purchase and that, therefore, the turnovers relating to these two items are not exigible to tax. The Board of Revenue exercising its powers under Section 20(1) revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the burden of proof laid upon the assessee under Section 7-A of the Act has not been discharged. Section 7-A puts the burden of proof on the dealer. It is for the dealer to show that any sale or purchase effected by him is not liable to tax or is liable to be taxed at a reduced rate. The case of the appellant in this appeal is that the sales effected by him were second sales and, therefore, were not liable to tax. Under entry 3 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›