Andhra Pradesh Court October 2005 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.
Rmc Readymix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu, Sa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: (2007)6VST717(AP)
ORDERW.P. Nos. 17793, 17795 to 17797, 4581, 4582 and 4587 of 2005:1 In this batch of writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.W.P. Nos. 17793 and 17795 to 17797 of 2005:2 In order to examine the question raised in these writ petitions, it is sufficient, if the averments in writ petition No. 17793 of 2005 are noticed. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act engaged in business of manufacture and sale of 'ready-mix concrete' having its registered office in Mumbai and factory at Nacharam Industrial Area, Hyderabad. It was registered as a dealer on the rolls of the first respondent both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). The matter that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is under the Act, rather Value Added Tax (VAT) Act. Under Section 5 read with Schedules specified und...
M.S. Sandeep Sai Vs. Osmania University, Rep. by Its Registrar and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALT234
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a student of Engineering in the 3rd respondent College. He completed three years of instructions and he is due to be promoted to IV-Year. He failed in some of the examinations in II-Semester of Ill-Year. On account of the same, he was not entitled to be promoted to IV-Year. However, the college authorities promoted him to IV-Year, subject to the approval of the University. He has also applied for revaluation of the answer scripts, in which he is declared to have been failed. The college, in turn, forwarded the application of the petitioner for according approval, for the promotion given to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after promoting him to IV-Year, the 3rd respondent is not permitting him to attend the classes.2. The writ petition came up 'for admission' on 26-9-2005. It was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions, as to whether the University has accorded approval for the c...
Kedia Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD873
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. In W.P. No. 6610 of 2005 the petitioner seeks refund of Rs. 44,95,629/-, with interest at 24% per annum and costs, and for return of the bank guarantees furnished by them for Rs. 49.80 lakhs, consequent to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Branch, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT), dated 2.11.2004.2. CEA No. 42 of 2005, is preferred by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, against the very same order passed by the CESTAT, in Appeal No. C/st/90 and 103/ 2004 in C/213 and 235/2004, dated 2.11.2004. As it was contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs did not have the authority to prefer an appeal to this Court, against the order of CESTAT, the appeal in C.E.A(SR) No. 2340 of 2005 is preferred by the Commissioner of Customs.3. The writ petition and both the appeals are based on the same order, of the CESTAT dated 2.11.2004, and are therefore disposed of by a common order. Reference to parties shall, ...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gouri Shankar Modern Rice Mill
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: [2006]147STC370(AP)
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.1. The question of law which arises for consideration, in these batch of tax revision cases filed by the State of A.P. against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T, A. Nos. 894 of 2002 and batch dated March 31, 2004, is:Whether gunnies which have suffered tax within the State of A.P. can, under Section 6-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 again be subjected to tax when they are sold along with the contents, despite the prescription in entry 19 of the First Schedule that gunnies, sold with or without its contents, are liable to be taxed only at the point of first sale in the State 2 Facts, in brief, are that the respondents, in these batch of tax revision cases, are rice millers and registered dealers under the APGST Act. In respect of some of the assessees, the Commercial Tax Officers finalized assessments exempting the value of gunnies purchased from local registered dealers in the State. The contention, that under entry 19(iii) of ...
P. Ramalaxmi Vs. Peetala Tatayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD577; 2006(1)ALT79
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, who is one of the plaintiffs in the Court below, has come up with this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the order dated 1-8-2005 in O.S. No. 506 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, holding that the scope of the suit is limited and the parties shall confine to the issues framed while adducing their evidence.2. The suit was filed for cancellation of decree on the ground that fraud had been played in obtaining the decree. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, on objection being raised that the cross-examination cannot be beyond the scope of suit, for which counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Court has to consider the fraud played by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 777 of 1988 not only in the service of summons, but also the fraud played in bringing the documents in existence for actionable claim, whereas counsel for the defendant urged that th...
i. Surya Prakasa Rao and ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD415
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. The 1st petitioner herein was granted licence in Form IL-24 to sell Indian Liquor at Tenali for the Excise Year 2000-01. In pursuance thereof, though he started business in the name and style of M/s. Sri Krishna Wines, due to certain problems he was unable to continue the business and therefore he made an application dated 21-3-2001 requesting the third respondent - Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur to transfer the licence in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 under Rule 38 of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules'). He also paid the required fee of Rs. 12,000/-. However, the 4th respondent -Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tenali by proceedings dated 25-3-2001 informed the 1st petitioner that he is required to remit a sum of Rs. 72,000/- towards licence fees but not Rs. 12,000/- and accordingly directed him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 60,000/-as per Rule 38(2) of the Rules. It appears that the said proceeding...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›