Andhra Pradesh Court November 1994 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. Pulp n Pack (Pvt) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: [1995]98STC165(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. This is a State's revision under section 22(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is filed against the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 538 of 1982 taking the view that 'paper pulp trays' used for carrying eggs, known as egg trays, should be classified under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act. The learned Government Pleader submits that egg trays fall under 'general goods' and are taxable under section 5(1) of the Act. The question whether the paper pulp egg trays fall under entry 19 of the First Schedule to the Act, is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Chennupati Traders, Vijayawada (1989) 9 APSTJ 17. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Claridge & Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise (1991) 52 ELT 341, the judgment in State of A.P. v. Chennupati Traders, Vijayawada (1989)...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Swapna Mahila Co-operative Super Bazar
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: [1995]98STC123(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these tax revision cases, filed by the State under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), is : 'Whether the iron trunk box is a 'container' within the meaning of entry 19 of the Schedule I of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative super bazar. It claimed exemption on the turnover of the iron boxes on the ground that the second sales of iron boxes fall under entry 19 of the Schedule I of the Act. The assessing authority did not agree with this contention and treated the same as general goods which are taxable under section 5(1) of the Act. That view of the assessing authority was upheld by the appellate authority. But on a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the orders of the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority were set aside and the trunk box is held to be a 'container' within the meaning of entry 19 of Schedule I to the ...
Kalla Yadagiri and Others Vs. Kotha Bal Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-13-1994
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD222; 1999(1)ALT211
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J 1. The question at issue is whether the provisions of the A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 deal with the valuation of suits determining pecuniary jurisdiction overriding the provisions contained in the A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The matter is of practical importance and the reference has been made to the Full Court to resolve the divergence of opinion.2. We may narrate the events leading to the reference. This CRP 4858 of J994 first came up before the learned single Judge. It is directed against the order passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Siddipet in OS No.72 of 1994 on preliminary objection raised by the defendants in the said suit, who are the petitioners herein. The objection was with regard to jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the subject matter of the suit was shown as Rs.68,000/- and the relief of declaration and consequential injunction under Section 24(b) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (hereinafter ref...
J.B. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Warangal a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT722; 1994(3)ALT722; [1995(70)FLR619]; (1995)IILLJ872AP; (1995)IILLJ872SC
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. In this writ petition the question that arises for decision is : 'Whether the Labour Court after holding that the domestic enquiry is invalid or vitiated can suo motu direct the management to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charges without there being any request either in writing or oral in that behalf.' 2. The brief facts relevant in this behalf are : Pursuant to the dispute raised by the petitioner in the wake of his dismissal from service, the Labour Court-first respondent herein observing that the petitioner during the course of domestic enquiry was not given the required opportunity, besides referring to undisputed fact that the enquiry report was not supplied to hi, rendered a finding that the enquiry was in valid. While so holding, the Labour Court afforded the management with an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner. This part of the order affording the management with the opportunity to so adduce evidence i...
Tahera Bee Vs. Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT448
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The petitioner is a casual labourer working under the 2nd respondent officer. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Attender vide his proceedings No. J403/86 dated 30-7-1986 ignoring the seniority of the petitioner as illegal and to grant the consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner averments disclose that the petitioner joined the services of the 1st respondent as a casual labourer and reported for duty under the 2nd respondent on 9-6-1966 and since then she had been continuously working as a casual labourer. The 3rd respondent also joined the services of the 1st respondent and she was working under the 2nd respondent from 14-7-1966. The 2nd respondent has prepared a seniority list of casual labourers wherein there petitioner is given Rank No. 17 whereas the 3rd respondent is given Rank No. 19. This is an admitted position as could be seen from the averments made in the ...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Coromandel Paints and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: [1995]98STC82(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These three tax revision cases, relating to the same assessee but pertaining to different assessment years, are preferred by the State under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the State Act'), against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeals dated July 1, 1987. The question, which pertains to assessment of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Central Act'), is common in the three revisions and arises out of common facts. Therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. For appreciating the question in these cases, we would refer to the facts in Tax Revision Case No. 148 of 1988. It relates to the assessment year 1980-81. The turnover of the assessee included turnover of an amount of Rs. 53,96,110, in respect of which claim for exemption was accepted by the assessing authority under section 6-A of the Central Act on the ground th...
P. Raj Kumar Vs. N. Krishna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT597
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the common judgment and order of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. Nos. 151 /92 and 135/92 dated 23-2-1993 which were filed by the petitioner and respondent herein respectively aggrieved by the order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad dated 6-3-1992 in R.C.No. 158/89. The petitioner and the respondent herein are the petitioner and respondent before the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner claimed to be the landlord of the petition schedule premises bearing Municipal No. 1-5-303, Dhan Bazar, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad, filed an eviction petition before the Principal Rent Controller under Section 10(3) (a) (1) and 10 (3) (a)(iii) (a), and 10(2) (i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'). The respondent resisted the petition. The Rent Controller after holding an enquiry into the grounds of eviction and also the controversies...
Girdharlal and Company Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]97STC442(AP)
Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this tax revision case, is the scope of the power of the assessing authority to revise the assessment under section 14(4) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, for short ('the Act'). It will be useful to read that provision here : '14(4). In any of the following events, namely, where the whole or any part of the turnover of a business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, or has been under-assessed or assessed at a rate lower than the correct rate, or where the licence fee or registration fee has escaped levy or has been levied at a rate lower than the correct rate, the assessing authority may, after issuing a notice to the dealer, and after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, by order, setting out the grounds therefor, - (a) determine to the best of his judgment the turnover that has escaped assessment and assess the turnover so determined; (b) assess the correct amount of tax payabl...
G. Solmon Raju Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Member-se ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT458
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. The Writ Petitioner is, at present, working as Lower Division Clerk (for short 'L.D.C.') in the respondent-Electricity Board. In this Writ Petition he seeks a declaration that the action of the respondent-Board in not promoting him to the post of Upper Division Clerk (for short 'U.D.C.'), from the date when his juniors were promoted, as arbitrary and discriminatory. Further, the petitioner seeks a Mandamus to the respondent-Board to promote him to the post of U.D.C. from the date when his immediate juniors were promoted and also fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his immediate juniors in the cadre of U.D.C. with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition disclose that the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. in the services of the respondent-Board in the month of April, 1964. Thereafterwards, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 12-7-1966 on certain alleged misc...
Dakshina India Arya Vysya Sri Vasavi Kanyakaparameswari Dharma Paripal ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT559
ORDERA. Gopal Rao, J.1. Both the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are connected. Transfer C.M.P. No. 133 of 1994 is filed by M/s. Dakshina India Arya Vysya Sri Vasavi Kanyakaparameswari Dharma Paripalana Samstha, represented by its Managing trustee, Tirumala, Chittoor District, seeking trnasfer of Original Suit No. 39 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudivada in Krishna District, to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati for trying the same along with Original Suit No. 107/1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court at Tirupathi. Transfer C.M.P. No. 156 of 1994 is filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in Tr. C.M.P. 133/94, seeking transfer of Original suit No. 107/94 from the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirupati, to the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudivada, for trying the same along with Original Suit No. 39 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudivada.2. For the sake of convenience, in this order, parties will be refer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »