Andhra Pradesh Court June 1988 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.
Swadeshi Khandasari Udyog and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]75STC383(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These seven tax revision cases can be disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we may state the facts in T.R.C. No. 43 of 1985 since all the material facts are identical, though the dates of orders may vary from case to case. 2. The assessment year concerned is 1972-73. The original assessment was made on 19th September, 1973. The turnover relating to jaggery was taxed but at a lower rate. The assessment order is said to have been served upon the assessee on 24th December, 1973. Finding later that jaggery has been taxed at a lower rate than prescribed by law, the assessing authority reopened the assessment and passed a revised order of assessment on 23rd September, 1978. Against this order, appeals were filed but without success. The matter was then brought to this Court, in T.R.C. No. 42 of 1982, etc. One of the contentions urged before this Court was that the order of reassessment was barred by limitation. It was contended that on the facts of th...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rama Krishna Industries
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]75STC250(AP)
Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. The question arose in this case is whether the hessian cloth bags with polythene lining and craft paper fall under entry 19 or entry 67 of the First Schedule. 2. The Tribunal has held that they fall under entry 67 of the First Schedule. This is challenged by the State stating that under entry 67 of the First Schedule, hessian cloth and jute twine are taxable. But, in this case, the hessian cloth is provided with a polythene lining and craft paper for extra protection of chemicals. Entry 67 contains only hessian cloth and jute twine and bags made of hessian cloth are not mentioned whereas in entry 19 containers other than gunnies and bottles are mentioned. Therefore, they fall under entry 19 of the First Schedule. 3. By seeing both the entries, it is clear that under entry 67 hessian cloth and jute twine are only taxable and there is no mention regarding hessian cloth bags. Therefore, it cannot be held that they fall under entry 67. Under entry 19 of the First Schedul...
Bommidala Brothers Ltd. Vs. Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ998AP
Sardar Ali Khan, J.1. W.P. No. 2409/87 is filed by M/s. Bommidala Poor-naiah, represented by his power of attorney holder-Sri Talluri Venkateswara Rao, Guntur, W.P. No. 12479/87 is filed by M/s. Bommidala Brothers Limited, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur, represented by its Director B. Kasiviswanatham. In both the writ petitions common question of payment of gratuity to the female-respondent-workers is involved. There are common questions of law and fact involved in both the cases which are fit to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The basic facts of the case, as given in W.P. No. 2409/87, can be taken into consideration for a decision in both the matters.3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 2409/87 are that a concern by name M/s. Bommidala Poornaiah, a partnership firm at Guntur, was functioning in which the petitioner is a partner. The said concern was registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm ceased to exist from December, 1970 onwards and the serv...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dolton Press
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-1988
Reported in: [1990]76STC201(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The only question in this tax revision case is whether the blocks made by the respondent and supplied to the customers are not goods or whether it should be treated as works contract. The Tribunal, on an examination of some of the blocks produced before it, held that it is a works contract. The same is the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vasudeo Rao [1981] 48 STC 447. Having regard to the process involved in preparation of these blocks as set out in para 3 of the Tribunal's order, we hold that it is a works contract and, therefore, not exigible to tax during the relevant assessment year. The tax revision case fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 2. Petition dismissed. ...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goodyear India Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-09-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC47(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The contention urged by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes in this T.R.C. is that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the transmission beltings are cotton fabrics within the meaning of entry 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and, therefore, exempt from tax. According to him, the transmission beltings are not cotton fabrics. 2. Let us first see how the transmission beltings are manufactured. Even according to the Deputy Commissioner who revised the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and held that they are not cotton fabrics, they are manufactured with cotton and superimposed with rubber. The question is whether they can be called 'cotton fabrics'. Entry 5 of the Fourth Schedule reads as follows : 'FOURTH SCHEDULE Goods exempted from tax under section 8 S. No. Description of goods :- 1. ............... 2. ............... 3. ............... 4. ............... 5. Cotton fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics and...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V.V. Rama Rao and Company
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC190(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. A common question that arises in these tax revision cases is whether prior to Amendment Act No. 49 of 1976 which inserted the word 'televisions' in entry 3 in the First Schedule to the A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the televisions or parts and accessories thereof can be taxed under the said entry 3 or should they be taxed as general goods under section 5 of the Act. Entry 3 before the amendment read as under : '3. Wireless reception instruments and apparatus, radios, radio gramophones, electrical valves, accumulators, amplifiers and loud speakers and spare part and accessories thereof.' 2. By virtue of the amendment the word 'televisions' was inserted after the words 'radio gramophones' and before the words 'electrical valves'. In these cases we are concerned with the period prior to 1st September, 1976. We immediately make it clear that so far as the period commencing on and from 1st September, 1976 is concerned there is no dispute; even the assessee does not ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Barium Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR243(AP)
Jeevan Reddy J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the question of assessing the tax perquisite in the hands of the Indian company in its capacity as the agent of the non-resident company would not arise ?' 2. The facts relevant to the question are that the assessee-company, Barium Chemicals Limited, Ramavaram, entered into an agreement with a foreign company, viz., Chemical and Technical Service Limited, on July 9, 1967, whereunder, the assessee-company undertook to remit certain amounts to the foreign company from time to time. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee-company remitted certain amounts to the foreign company. No tax was deducted at source by the assessee-company as required under section 195 of the Income-tax Ac...
B.V. Joshi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP122
ORDER1. The petitioner was admittedly granted mining lease to excavate iron ore in S. Nos. 342/A and 343 at Sarfarajapuram village, Ganitattu Hill in Emboyee R.F., P.O. Velaurthi in Kurnool District for a period of 30 years with effect from 31-10-1953. The lease expired by 30-10-1983. The petitioner applied for renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years, on 23-9-1982. The State Government did not take any action within a period of two months as required under Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (for short 'the Rules'). As a result, under the deeming provisions, it must have been rejected. On that premise, the petitioner filed a revision to the Central Government. The Central Government, by an order dt. 3-11-1983, dismissed that revision on the ground that it was premature as the Rules provide an interregnum of 6 months for disposal of the petitioner's application by the State Government. As a result, the petitioner was granted breathing time to continue the mining o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›