Andhra Pradesh Court November 1995 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.
Coromandel Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: [1996]101STC339(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not refunding the amount of Rs. 85,735 with interest is illegal and arbitary and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the said amount with interest in view of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 104 of 1993 on March 1, 1994. 2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows : Aggrieved by the order of assessment made in the year 1987-88 which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by an order dated March 1, 1994, holding that the purchases effected by the petitioner were in the course of export and, therefore, the same were not liable to tax under section 38 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act read with section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is not in ...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Scientific Fertilizer Co. ( ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ169AP
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court passed in A.A.O. No. 130/1984 dated September 25, 1987, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court considered the scope of Section 2 Subsection (9), Section 2 Sub-section (10) and Section 2 Sub-section (21) of Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 and found that as 'shop' is nowhere defined in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the definition as made out in the Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 shall be looked into and he also considered that the employees who are on deputation are not liable to be counted for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Act and to make demand for E.S.I, contribution.2. A few facts which are necessary to decide this appeal are that the Respondent herein is a company having its concerns at two places, at one place manufacturing insecticides and at other place manufacturing p...
Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Valluri Ve ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT670
ORDERAvinash Somakant Bhate, J. 1. This Revision is filed challenging the order in E.P.No. 187 of 1993 in O.P.No. 114 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram. 2. The point for consideration before the Court below was whether the decree-holder respondent herein was entitled for claiming interest on the amount of solatium and also on the amount of 12% interest which is payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge held that the decree-holder was entitled for the said interest both on solatium as well as on 12% interest payable under the above said provision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act and the interest payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act do not form part of compensation for the property acquired and interest is payable under Section 28 of the Act only on the amount of compensation and it is therefore, co...
V. Gopala Krishna Murthy Vs. the Registrar (Administration) High Court ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT833
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J. 1. This is an application for review of the judgment dated 11-9-1995 dismissing the writ petition at the admission stage. The writ petition is filed questioning an order dated 1-9-1995 passed by the second respondent i.e., the District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Saroornagar, placing the petitioner under suspension pending the initiation and conclusion of the departmental enquiry into certain charges levelled against the petitioner. The order dated 1-9-1995 is challenged in the writ petition inter alia on the grounds that it was passed without considering his objections and without giving any prior opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation to the charges or to substantiate his defence, that the allegations contained in the suspension order differ from those contained in the memo dated 28-7-1995 issued by the second respondent, that the petitioner duly handed over charge of all the records and case properties on the date of his transfer i...
Kodi Satyanarayana Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)ALT570
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order of confiscation passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kakinada.2. The lorry bearing registration No.ADJ-6351 was proceeding from Yanam to Ramachandrapuram of East Godavari District. While the driver was found in possession of one quarter bottle of gin, the cleaner was found in possession of four bottles of liquor under his seat, which is in violation of the provisions of the Prohibition Act. As to whether these actions can be attributed to be with the consent of the owner is yet to be established in an enquiry. The enquiring authority is the second respondent and he is enjoined under Section 26-A (sic. 46-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act') to issue a notice. Sub-section (b) of Section 26-A (sic. 46-A) of the Act contemplates that opportunity should be afforded for making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR48(AP)
P. Venkata Rama Reddi, J.1. In this application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks reference of the following two questions for the decision of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the amount of Rs. 2,53,700 incurred towards boarding, lodging and education of the 32 orphans adopted by the assessee-company as a business expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance of Rs. 2,24,52,331 on the new plant and machinery installed in the assessee's business of extracting coal ?' 2. We are of the view that the first question raises a debatable point of law. No doubt, there is a finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred for the lodging, boarding and education of 32 orphans pursuant to the appeal made by the State Government, as a measure of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Transport Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR127(AP)
1. These petitions are filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-Central, seeking reference of the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure by way of secret commission was deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act in computing the business income of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the payments claimed to have been made under the head 'Secret commission' is not opposed to public policy and is an item of deduction in the computation of the total income of the assessee ?' 2. Two other questions arising out of the same order of the Tribunal have already been referred by the Tribunal but the Tribunal declined reference of the above two questions. They turn on the larger...
S. Kareemulla and ors. Vs. Prohibition and Excise Sub-inspector, Nandy ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALD(Cri)943; 1996(1)ALT953
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. This batch of writ petitions, involving common questions of law and most of the facts having been admitted are heard on merits as proposed by the learned Advocates both for the petitioners and the respondents, and are being disposed of by means of this common judgment on merits. 2. The vehicles, said to be belonging to the petitioners, were seized by the first respondent for an alleged offence under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and they are said to have been before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise for initiating confiscation proceedings in accordance with law. Section 46(2) of the A.P. Excise Act. The propriety of the seizure of the vehicles is being assailed on the grounds of illegality, arbitrariness and unjustifiable basis. The petitioners have also sought for release of the vehicles pending any prosecution for the alleged offences and the confiscation proceedings if initiated. The particulars of the vehicles seized in particular procee...