Andhra Pradesh Court February 1989 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.
Challa Ramkonda Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh by District ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ668; AIR1989AP235
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit for da mages in a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs against the State of Andhra Pradesh has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kurnool.2. Plaintiffs I to 5 are the sons, and 6th plaintiff is the wife of late Challa Chinnappa Reddy. The deceased and the 1st plaintiff were accused in Crime No. 18/1977 of Owk Police Station in Banganapalle Taluk of Kurnool District. They were arrested on 25-4-1977 and remanded to judicial custody on 264-1977. They were lodged in Cell No. 7 of Sub-Jail of Koilakuntla. On the night intervening 5th and 6th May 1977, at about 3-30 a.m., some miscreants gained entry into the Sub-Jail, hurled bombs into Cell No. 7, and killed the deceased. The 1st plaintiff escaped with injuries. The said incident took place, according to the plaintiffs, on account of malfeasance and misfeasance of the defendant-State and its subordinate officials in guarding the sub-jail premises. The deceased was a rich and influen...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Tirumalagiri Traders
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: [1989]73STC237(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The question is whether mineral mixture should be taxed as poultry feed under entry 80 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act or as general goods. Mineral mixture is mixed with poultry feed and fed to poultry. It is not found by any of the authorities below that mineral mixture can be used for any purpose other than mixing with poultry feed. In the circumstances the Tribunal is right in holding that it should be taxed as poultry feed under entry 80. The same is the situation with respect to shell-grit. 2. However it is made clear that if it is found in any case that this mineral mixture can be put to any use other than mixing with poultry feed, it would be open to the assessing authority to take a different view. 3. So far as wheat bran is concerned, it is not disputed before us that it falls under entry 60(c) of the First Schedule. 4. The tax revision case accordingly fails and is dismissed. 5. Petition dismissed. ...
Vijaya Kumar and ors. Vs. General Manager, Milk Products Factory, Andh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ354AP
ORDER1. The petitioners were Security Guards in the Milk Products Factory A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Hyderabad. The impugned order dated 9th January, 1989 is passed by the management suspending the six petitioners who are Security Guards pending enquiry into certain charges. In the impugned order it is stated that 60 Ghee tins of 15 Kgs. worth of Rs. 53,445-00 were found missing from the Godown of Cold Stores, Somajiguda. The Junior Manager, one T. R. Jugraj Prasad, and the Store Keeper G. Janardhan, are said to have been entrusted with these stocks and they failed to maintain accounts. The petitioners who are the Security Guards are also referred to in the order in connection with the said charge and are kept under suspension. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Malla Reddy submits that these Security Guards were not on duty when the Ghee tins were lost. 3. In my view, this is a matter which they have to submit in their explanation and it is for...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hampko Enterprises
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC143(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The only question in these tax revision cases is whether the expression 'paper' occurring in G.O. Ms. No. 206, Revenue, dated 1st February, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'exemption G.O.' includes 'paper board' The assessment years concerned herein are 1975-76 and 1976-77. Prior to 1st September, 1976, there was no independent entry in any of the Schedules relating to 'paper'. With effect from the said date entry 143 was inserted in the First Schedule. The entry reads as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Description of goods point of Rate oflevy tax------------------------------------------------------------------------143. Paper of all kinds (including paste At the 7 paiseboard, mill-board, straw board and point of in thecard-board), that is to say - first sale rupee.in theState.(i) cigarette tissue;(ii) blotting, toilet or target tissue,teleprinted, typewriting, manifold,bank, bond or art paper, chrome p...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bakelite Hylam Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC192(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The only question in this tax revision case is whether the value of the goods returned by the purchasers to the dealer should be excluded from the turnover. 2. A few facts need be stated : Goods of the value of Rs. 9,140.70 were brought to tax after including their turnover in the turnover relating to the assessment year 1976-77. Subsequently, assessment for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 was taken up. In the assessment proceedings relating to the assessment year 1977-78 the assessee claimed that the value of the returned goods should be excluded from the turnover. The assessing authority and the first appellate authority declined to do so, but the Tribunal acceded to this request, relying upon rule 6(b) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. Rule 6(b) reads as follows : '6. The tax or taxes under sections 5, 5-A, 6 or notified under section 9(1) shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer. In determinating the net turnover, the amounts spe...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Toshniwal Combines
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC268(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 30-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules says that every manufacturer shall prepare a declaration in from G in triplicate and issue the original and duplicate thereof to the dealer from whom he purchases component part or parts at the concessional rate of tax. Clause (b) says that the selling dealer of the component part or parts 'shall send the declaration in original to the assessing authority along with the return prescribed under rule 15 or rule 17, as the case may be'. The dealer in this case is the selling dealer of component parts. He did not send the declarations along with the return, but filed them before the assessment order was made. The question in this tax revision case is whether the said declarations can be received or not. We are of the opinion that the requirement in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 30-A, viz., that the declaration in original should be filed along with the return, is not mandatory...
E. Ramasubbareddy Vs. State of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: AIR1990AP8
ORDER1. The land of the petitioner was acquired for Srisailam Project. Notification under S. 4(1) and declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on February 20, 1981. The award was passed on 15-9-1986. It is stated that cheques were issued to the petitioner for the amount of compensation. The petitioner presented the cheques in his bank. According to the petitioner, the cheques ought to have been encashed on or before 24th September, 1984 as the period of two years prescribed under S. 11-A of the Act would expire by that date. As the cheques were not cashed before that date, the petitioner submits there is no award in the eye of law and all the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act will be deemed tohave lapsed by virtue of S. 11-A of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, prays that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue a fresh notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The respondents filed common counter-af...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Meda Mines and Minerals
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]79STC349(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The only objection of the State in this tax revision case is that additional evidence has been admitted by the Tribunal as a matter of course, i.e., without adhering to the conditions prescribed by regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957. Regulation 11 is practically in the same terms as Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is evident that any additional evidence can be admitted only in accordance with, which means only where any one of the conditions specified in the said regulation is satisfied. The admission of additional evidence, it goes without saying, is not a matter of course. But so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, we are not satisfied that the additional evidence is admitted as a matter of course. 2. In this case the 'C' forms were not filed before the assessing authority. They were sought to be filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority refused to receive...
M. Linga Murthy Vs. District Social Welfare Officer, Cuddapah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990AP90
1. The appellant is the claimant. Land in an extent of Ac. 2.52 cents of Jammalamadugu village was acquired by publishing a notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, Act I of 1894 in the District Gazette dt. Feb. 17, 1976 for a public purpose, viz., providing house, sites to the poor. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per acre. The appellant claimed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- but restricted the same to Rs. 50,000/- later on. The civil Court refused to revise the market value on the ground that the appellant had not laid his claim pursuant to the notices under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act. Therefore, it passed a 'nil' award. Against this award, this appeal has been filed.2. The contention of Sri Ashok, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Land Acquisition Officer having made a reference under S. 18(1), is precluded from objecting that the appellant had not filed his claim statement b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Seshagiri Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(AP)170; [1990]182ITR24(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Hyderabad, has referred the following two questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee did not constitute an association of persons or a body of individuals (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that individual assessments are to be made in the hands of each of the co-sharers on the amounts received by them on the ground that there was a diversion of income by overriding title ' 2. Indeed, the facts of this case are identical with the facts in CIT v. Friends Enterprises : [1988]171ITR269(AP) . The Tribunal disposed of the appeal following the principle of its decision in the said case. On reference, however, this court did not agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the A...