Andhra Pradesh Court February 1991 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.
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kothuri Venkateswarlu and Sons
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC334(AP)
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Upendralal Waghray, J.1. This revision case is directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 13th October, 1988, whereby the Appellate Tribunal directed that the revision, which was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 23rd September, 1987, by the Deputy Commissioner, by heard and disposed of by him in accordance with law. It appears, that the relevant assessment year is 1983-84 and the order of assessment was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 26th June, 1984. 2. The petitioner-assessee, M/s. Kothuri Venkateswarlu and Sons, aggrieved by the said assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer preferred a revision petition under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as prevalent at that time. Section 20(1) of the Act confers a right of revision on both parties at the relevant time. With effect from 1st July, 1985, section 20(1) of the Act was amended by the State Act (Act 18 of 1985) whereby the power of inte...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Vijaya Hybrid Seeds
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC472(AP)
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Upendralal Waghray, J. 1. This tax revision case is directed against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 378/87 and 379/87 decided on May 16, 1988. The Revenue has come up in revision only against the decision in T.A. Nos. 379/87 in relation that the assessment year 1983-84. The Tribunal was concerned with the Central sales tax leviable on jowar. Jowar is leviable to local sales tax at 2 per cent under entry 17 of the Third Schedule. Jowar also comes under the category of 'declared goods' under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 8(2)(a) provides that where the sale is of declared goods without 'C' forms, the rate of Central sales tax will be double the rate of the appropriate State sales tax. The local sales tax on jowar is at 2 per cent as mentioned by us earlier and as per section 8(2)(a), the Central sales tax will be at the rate of 4 per cent. This the Tribunal also held in its judgment. We are in complete agre...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Deccan Engineering and Refrigeration Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]84STC360(AP)
1. The respondent-assessee was taxed on a net turnover including the turnover of Rs. 56,948 representing the sales of thermocole which was sub-assessed to tax at 4 per cent treating it as 'general goods'. The Revenue pleads that thermocole was covered by entry 2 of the First Schedule. This matter earlier also arose before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 530, 531 and 636/84 and the Tribunal by its decision dated October 6, 1987, took the view that thermocole is exigible to tax as 'general goods' under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. That decision, we are told, became final and the Revenue did not challenge the same. Following the earlier decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, against which the present tax revision case has been filed. 2. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the commodity 'thermocole', is exigible to tax as 'general goods' under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. We find no merits to admit ...
Rajendra Modern Rice Mill, Represented by Its Proprietor, Veeresham an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT156
ORDERRadhakrishna Rao, J.1. Proceedings Under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated against the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Precurement Levy Order, 1984, by the authorities of the Civil Supplies Department. The Collector, Adilabad District, who is the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order of confiscation of 50% in W.P. 17538/90 and 25% in W.P. 17537/90 of the stocks seized, on 13-8-1990. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners have preferred appeals Under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act. As Appeals have to be preferred within 30 days--the appeals in these have been filed with a delay of 5 days--the appellate authority dismissed the appeals on 16-10-1990 holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the said authority. The appellate authority followed an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3951 of 1990 at the stage of admission on 13-3-1990. The Appellate authority a...
The Govt. of A.P. Through Secretary, Irrigation Department and ors. Vs ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT496
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State (defendant in suit) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16-7-1990 of the learned single Judge in CM.P.No.8300 of 1990 in the CM.A., refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The C.M.A. itself arises out of an order in I A.No.272/87 dated 9-12-1987 refusing to set aside an ex parte decree dated 19-2-1987 passed against the State by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in OS.No.4/85 in a sum of Rs. 1,60,001/-. The amount was claimed towards compensation payable for the alleged taking over of wells, said to be existing within certain property acquired under the Land Acquisition fact. So far as the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge in appeals under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C., there is no difficulty in view of the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in Srinivas v. J.N.T. University, 1990(2) APLJ 55 (SN), expla...
G. Munilakshmamma Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT617
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The petitioner was cultivating an extent of ac. 2.67 cents in survey No. 50/2 and Ac. 2-30 cents in Survey No. 50/3 of Kagathi village which are Government waste lands. He was cultivating the lands as Sivaijamdar from 1978 but 'D' Form Patta was granted in his favour on December 11, 1989. By proceedings Roc. No. 2114 of 1990 dated September 30, 1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chowde-palli Mandal, Chittoor district, the second respondent herein, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the patta granted in his favour should not be cancelled. It is the correctness of this show cause notice that is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the second respondent has no power under Board Standing Orders to cancel the patta.2. Respondents 4 to 11 were impleaded as the parties to the writ petition on February 4, 1991.3. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 to 3.4. Respondents 4 to 11 filed a common counter affidavit raisin...
L. Ramesh Vs. the Superintendent, Central Prison and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ALT619
ORDERN.D. Patnaik, J.1. The Petitioner who is accused No. 1 m Sessions case No. 74/84 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nalgonda was granted bail pending Criminal appeal No. 267/86 which was ultimately disposed of with some modification. The petitioner was in jail during the period from 13-5-1986 to 7-11-1986 in connection with another case.2. This petition is filed to deduct that period during which he was in jail from the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him in Crl. A.No. 267/86. Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code says that where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, (not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry, or trial of the same case and before the date of such coviction, shall be set-off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction.3. In this case, since the petitioner was in jail during the period from 13-5-1986 to 7-...
J. Kothanda Naidu Vs. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Temple, Rep. by Its Chai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT464
ORDERP.L. Narasimha Sarma, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision. The revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor in CM A. No. 6/89 dt: 12-11-90 affirming the order of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor , in IA. No. 65/87 in RCC. No. 24/86. The relevant facts are as follows :-2. The respondent-temple filed eviction petition RCC. No. 24/86 for evicting the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises on certain grounds which are not necessary to mention for the disposal of this revision. The said R.C.C. was resisted by the tenant. Pending the main petition for eviction IA. No. 65/87 was filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 11 (4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of fair rent of amount of Rs. 175/- per month with effect from 1-12-78 till the date of filing of th...
Vemulakonda Anjaneyulu Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Station House Off ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)ALT561
ORDERN.D. Patnaik, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is accused in CC No. 69/88 on the file of the 7th Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, to quash the proceedings against him. The complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent who is the brother of the accused. The allegations in the complaint are that when the petitioner was in need of money on account of his suspension from Government service he requested his brother the complainant to give him some money and therefore the complainant gave him various amounts and also gave him some gold jewellery with the understanding that they should be returned to him but the petitioner had failed to return and on account of that the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 18,000/-. The complaint is filed under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that the complainant gave him the money out of love and affection and it is not intended to be refunded to the complainant and at any rate i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›