Andhra Pradesh Court December 1978 Judgments
Anand Oil Industries Vs. Labour Court, Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP182
Madhava Reddy, J.1. This writ petition comes up before us on reference by our learned Brothers, Kondaiah, J. and Lakshmaiah J. principally for the consideration of the question 'Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction and is competent to entertain an application under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by a single or a group of workmen in his or their individual capacity claiming minimum bonus under S. 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act against his or their employer and decide the questions relating to the claim of minimum bonus in view of S. 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act?'. Our learned brothers also observed that incidentally the nature, scope and ambit of S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act falls for decision.2. M/s. Anand Oil Industries, a Partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as the employer, has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against the Labour Court Hyderabad (1st respondent herein) prohibiting it from deciding or proceeding with M. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chintala Krishnamurty Vs. Uppala Rajlingam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1980AP69
1. This appeal is directed against the decision in A. S. No. 31/1975 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by which the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 21/1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Medak was confirmed. Defendants in the suit are the appellants before this Court.2. Plaintiff (respondent) is the owner of the house bearing No. 3-4-64 and situate in Bada Bazaar, Medak Town. Defendants (appellants) are the owners of the house bearing No. 3-4-67 and lying to the east of the plaintiff's house. There is some vacant space to the east of the plaintiff's house and west of the wall FGHJIA of the plaint plan, belonging to the defendants. There is admittedly a well in this vacant space and it is also not in dispute that the vacant space and the well in it are accessible to the plaintiff and the members of his family through a door way in their house which opens into the said vacant space. The plaintiff's case is that he is the exclusive owner of the vacant...
Tag this Judgment!Anjan Trading Company Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC185(AP)
Ramanujulu Naidu, J. 1. The petitioner in the above tax revision case, preferred against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in T.A. No. 29 of 1977 on its file, is a dealer in coriander, among other goods, at Guntakal. From the assessment year. 1975-76, the petitioner was assessed to tax at the rate of four paise in the rupee under item 9 of the Second Schedule to the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Guntakal, on a turnover of Rs. 12,74,997, being the total value of first purchases of coriander effected by him in the State, among other items of turnover, which need not be detailed for the purpose of disposal of the above revision case. On appeal, the assessment was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Appeals, Kurnool, by her order dated 28th December, 1976. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Tribunal.2. The legality of levy of tax on the turnover of coriander at the point of first ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Pottimurthy Subbarao and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC19(AP)
A. Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. The point that is raised in this tax revision case, preferred by the revenue, is very simple. It relates to the meaning of the word 'miller' used in item 6 of the Third Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.2. The assessee purchased groundnut and got it decorticated. However, they (the assessee-firm) did not own any groundnut mill, nor are they lessees of any such mill. They only got the groundnuts decorticated in other mills. Part of the groundnut they got crushed into oil in some mill, which would be engaged for individual transactions on hire. To the extent that they got the groundnut crushed into oil and cake they have already been assessed and the tax has been paid separately by them. Now the dispute is about the turnover in respect of the sales of remaining groundnut kernel effected by them to other millers in the State in the form of groundnut kernel itself. The assessing authority and the appellate authority levied tax on this latter turn...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Raghavulu and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC303(AP)
A. Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. The relief now sought is in respect of a somewhat stale claim made by the sales tax department. As it is well-known, groundnuts are declared goods. If inter-State trade is made in respect thereof, Central sales tax also is leviable in respect of such trade. As laid down by section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the proviso to section 6 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, such dealer should pay the State tax as well as the Central tax and then claim refund of the State tax. But the State Government issued on 14th July, 1964, G.O. No. 1094 exempting the declared goods from the levy of Central sales tax on condition that the dealers will not claim any refund of the State tax which they have paid. Evidently noticing the incongruity of such a notification, the State Government revoked it by a notification dated 26th November, 1970. Despite the revocation, it appears some of the sales tax authorities continued to collect only the State tax and the difference b...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Electronics Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-15-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC14(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. The assessee is a dealer in radios, radio parts and leather cases. The dispute now arose in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. That is why there are two tax revision cases before us, the first one relating to the earlier year and the second case relating to the later year. Before the Commercial Tax Officer, when the return was filed, the assessee claimed that he was liable to pay sales tax only at the rate of 3 percent on the leather cases saying that they come under the category of 'general goods'. This was accepted by the Commercial 'Tax Officer, who assessed the sales of leather cases only as general goods at 3 per cent. The Deputy Commissioner suo motu took notice of this taxation and issued a notice to the assessee why the sales of the leather cases should not be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent treating them as 'radio accessories'. For giving this notice, the Deputy Commissioner was inspired by the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Stainless Steel Wire Industries, Hyderabad Vs. Chief Cont ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1978
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT49(AP)
Seetharam Reddy, J1. These three writ appeals arise out of a common order in W.P.Nos. 2423, 2424 and 3418 of 1975 made by our learned brother Kondaiah, J., dismissing the same as not competent and maintainable. The parties are common in all these writ appeals as well as the writ petitions, and common questions do arise for consideration out of the same. The same may be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The price point that arises in these writ appeals, is whether the appellant, who is a manufacturer of automobile ancillaries, is entitled to import Heat Resistance Steel (hereinafter referred to as H.R.S) based on the actual consumption. 3. The appellant - petitioner, who is common in all these three writ appeals, is a Small Scale Industrial Unit owned by a registered partnership known as Keshavji Ravji & Co., Madras, whose principal business is Imports and Exports, with its Head Office at Madras. The petitioner is a manufacturer, inter alia of automobile ancillaries. For the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Stainless Steel Wire Industries, Hyderabad Vs. the Chief ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP280
Seetharama Reddy, J,1. These three writs appeals arise out of a common order in W. P. Nos. 2423, 2424 and 3418 of 1975 made by our learned brother Kondaiah, J. dismissing the same as not competent and not maintainable. The parties are common in all these Writ Appeals as well as the Writ Petitions, and common questions do arise for consideration out of the same. The same may be disposed of by a common judgment,2. The prime point that arises in these writ appeals, is whether the appellant a-he is a manufacturer of automobile ancillaries, is entitled to import Heat Resistant Steel hereinafter referred to HRS, based on the actual consumption.3. The appellant-petitioner, who is common to all these three Writ Appeals, is a Small Scale Industrial Unit owned by a registered partnership known as Keshavji Ravji & Co., Madras whose principal business is Imports and Exports, with its Head Office at Madras. The petitioner is a manufacturer, inter alia, of automobile ancillaries. For that purpose of...
Tag this Judgment!State Representative Before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Vs. Sanicons
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC234(AP)
A. Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. The question raised in this tax revision case, though a very short one, is quite interesting. It is: 'Whether water-meters come within the ambit of item 102 or item 83 of the First Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act?2. This is a revision at the instance of the revenue. The respondent is a dealer in sanitary goods. He also deals in water-meters. For the assessment year 1974-75, there was a disputed turnover of Rs. 66,245.82 and that amount represented the sales of water-meters. Here we are concerned only with that part of the assessment. The assessing authority treated water-meters as 'water supply fittings' under item 102 of the First Schedule, which prescribes the rate of 6 per cent as sales tax. The contention of the assessee, who is the respondent, is that water-meters are 'machinery' within the meaning of item 83 of the same schedule. He preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, who did not accede to the contention of the assessee but uphel...
Tag this Judgment!Nakka Ammorayya Vs. the District Social Welfare Officer, Kakinada and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP159
Madhava Rao, J.1. In this writ petition. the acquisition of land bearing S Nos. 26 and 30 measuring Ac. 6-16 cents in Kothapalli village, Pithapuram taluk, East Godavari District is challenged mainly on the following grounds:(1) that there was 'O proclamation of the substance of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the village, even though the Notification was published in the Gazatte on 11-2-1978. (2) that there was not such urgency so as to dispense with the enquiry under S, 5-A by invoking S 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and (3) that when other suitable lend is available for acquisition for the purpose of house sites to the poor the petitianer's land was deliberately acquired omitting the above land which is adjacent to Harijanwada. 2. We shall take up the second ground first. So far as invoking S. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is concerned, it is averred in the affidavit that dispensing with the enquiry under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »