Andhra Pradesh Court November 1978 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Azizunnissa Begum
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR376(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. These five wealth-tax cases have been preferred by the revenue. They relate to imposition of penalty on a wealth-tax assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70,2. The question which the revenue unsuccessfully tried to persuade the Tribunal to refer to this court and which they now want this court to direct the Tribunal to do so is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, fresh notices affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard were necessary under the statute ?'3. That such a notice is necessary has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Anantha Naganna Chetty v. CIT : [1970]78ITR743(AP) . The Division Bench held that such a notice is necessary while construing Section 5(7C) of the Indian I.T. Act of 1922, which, for all practical purposes, corresponds to Section 129 of the 1961 Act. As has happened in Anantha Naganna Chetty's case, here also a new officer without issuing a fresh notice completed the penalty proc...
Anamolu Seshagiri Rao and Co. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC388(AP)
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The common question which arises for decision in these writ petitions is whether the contracts entered into by the petitioners with the Southern and South Central Railways were contracts for sale of ballast or for work and labour.2. The petitioners voluntarily submitted their returns for the years 1963-64 to 1969-70 without claiming any exemption, and assessments were made and the tax was paid. Later they claimed exemption for the year 1970-71 and somehow it was granted. On that basis they claimed refund of the sales tax already paid for the years 1963-64 to 1969-70 and their request was turned down by the sales tax authorities. The petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking a declaration that the collection of the tax is illegal and a direction for refund of the tax already paid. Since a common question arose in all the writ petitions, they were heard together by a Division Bench, which negatived the plea of the petitioners that the contracts in question am...
R. Jagadeswara Rao Vs. Premier Insurance Co., Kakinada and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP68
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmunddry, in EP. No. 15 of 1973 in O.S. No. 76 of 1861 dismissing the E.P. as not maintainable The appellant filed an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' before the District Judge cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal East Godavari at Rajahmundry, and obtained an award for Rs. 12,600. He filed E.P. No. 15 of 1973, before the District Judge for the enforcement of the award of compensation against the respondents. The respondents resisted the execution on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. Upholding their contention the learned first Additional District Judge, dismissed the E.P.2. The short question and the sole question that arises for consideration is. Whether the E.P, filed before the District Judge for the enforcement of the award of compensation is not maint...
Khaja Abdul Khader Vs. Mahabub Saheb and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP152
Kondaiah, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the scope and interpretation of the provision of R. 10- ( 2) of O. 1, C. P. C. and in particular the expression ''questions involved' in the suit'.2. In-order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the admitted facts which lie in a short compass. The petitioner herein and the fourth respondent instituted O. S. 45 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Goodwill, against respondents 2 and 3 here in for their ejectment and possession of the suit lands on the ground that the suit property belonged to the Mosque and the defendants were their tenants: The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and claimed be in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The first respondent died I. A. No. 211 of 1975 to implead him as party-defendant on the grounds that he is the heir of one Chandubai who was granted the suit property by the Sam...
Sohail and Co. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC504(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. In this tax revision case we are concerned mainly with the scope of the exemption given to fresh milk, curds and buttermilk in G. O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue, dated 10th June, 1957. That G. O. was issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, to exempt from taxation certain goods. In the sai'd G. O., as many as 20 items are enumerated, but we are now mainly concerned with item No. 3 therein, viz., fresh milk, curds and buttermilk.2. Before we proceed further, we would like to point out very briefly the facts which gave rise to this tax revision case. The petitioner is a dealer in eggs, dressed chicken, fruits, etc. For the assessment year 1971-72, he returned a gross turnover of Rs. 3,29,633.70 and claimed exemption in respect of .a turnover of Rs. 3,26,058.70. The assessing officer granted the exemption and arrived at a net taxable amount of Rs. 3...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›