Delhi Court July 2002 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.
Prince Plastics and Chemical Industries and ors. Vs. Commissioner of S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]131STC372(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This bench of nine writ petitions raises common questions of law, in the context of facts which are essentially similar. In the petitions it has been prayed that a writ, order or direction be issued quashing Rule 8(4)(c) of Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the grounds that it is ultra virus the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The immediate grievance of the Petitioners pertains to the non-issuance of Sales Tax Forms (ST-1 Forms). Upon being accorded registration, dealers such as the Petitioners are both a purchasing as well as selling dealer inasmuch as when goods are transferred to another registered dealer without charging sales tax they fall in the category of a selling dealers. At the same time, in other transactions those very petitioners may be purchasing goods from another registered dealer without payment of sales tax, and in such cases they woul...
S.N.E. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]131STC417(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this bunch of writ petitions a challenge has been laid to Rule 8(4)(c)(ii) of the Delhi Sales TaxRules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on the premise that it is ultra virus the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(v) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975(hereinafter referred to a the Act) and is beyond the legislative competence of the Rule-making Authoritynamely, the Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi. the petitioners' understanding of the Act is that a registered dealer has been conferred with a vested right to buy or sell goods without any liability of tax on the goods specified in his registration Certificate, on the issuance of prescribed declaration Forms. Conversely,it is also contended that a registered dealer selling to another registered dealer can claim deduction from his taxable turnover on production of such forms. We may atonce observe that the arguments are enable so long asit is understand and accepted that it is essential and pivotal that the Dec...
Dhujender Pal Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT204; 2003(3)SLJ287(Delhi)
S.N. Sinha, C.J. 1. The original application before the learned Tribunal is the writ petitioner herein. He at all material times was working as a Constable in Delhi Police Force. A complaint was made against him by one Hitesh Jain that he together with Constable Manoj Kumar demanded illegal gratification from him while he was traveling on his scooter and ultimately his driving license was taken out together with a sum of Rs. 1050/- from his pocket. A raid was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Along with Inspector Special Staff/NE and a sum of Rs. 500/- was recovered from him, viz. a part of the amount he had taken from the complainant. A departmental proceeding was initiated. He was found guilty of the charges leveled against him by the Enquiry Officer, whereupon punishment of dismissal from service was awarded. However, so far as Constable Manoj Kumar is concerned he was exonerated from the charges.2. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order but the Appell...
Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. and ors. Vs. Times Guaranty Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT633; 2002(64)DRJ517
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 20th February, 2002 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi dismissing the application of petitioners for recalling the summoning order under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act)' on the complaint filed by respondent No. 1.2. Facts in brief are that M/s. Times Guaranty Ltd. (respondent No. 1) filed a complaint against petitioners under Sections 138/141/142 of N.I. Act read with Sections 420/120B/34 IPC alleging therein that they have a branch officer at New Delhi; accused No. 1 is a company, and accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the Managing Director, General Manager, Vice-President who are in charge and responsible for the conduct of its business. The accused company took some machinery on hire/purchase basis and agreed to repay the amount of the hire money in Installments along with inte...
M.R. Iqbal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT672; 2003(3)SLJ274(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioner at all material times was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. On the ground of alleged irregularities in discharge of his official duties he was charge-sheeted for violation of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A departmental proceeding was held, wherein he was found guilty. A copy of the enquiry Report was served upon him and he made a representation there against on 15th December 1997. No action was taken thereon for a long time. He, thereforee, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was marked as O.A. No. 949/00. The said application was disposed of on 21st November 2000 directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings. Union Public Service Commission (in short 'UPSC') was, thereforee, consulted by the disciplinary authority, whereupon the impugned order dated 21st March 2001 was communicated to him on 19th April 2001, wh...
Dr. S.N.A. Rizvi and ors. Vs. Registrar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT387
Khan, J.1. This petition is a charter of complaints and demands filed by petitioners who are members of R-3 Society. Their complaints range from alleged mismanagement of the affairs of the society by the Administrator and his effort to stay put for years on but their demand substantially converges on holding of elections to the society.2. It transpires that R-3 Society was supersededon 9.4.1992 and Administrator was appointed to it. After he continued to hold office beyond three years. Petitioner filed CWP 1285/97 asking for holding of elections to the society and enquiry into its affairs under Sections 55 and 59 of DCSA. The petition was disposed of on 3.11.99 directing Administrator to hold elections within three months and to complete the requisite enquiry expeditiously. In compliance thereto Election Officer was appointed and election programme announced on 12.5.2000. But since elections could not be held somehow, petitioners again launched this second round of litigation by this p...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT352TriDel
1. The Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise.3. Revenue raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal. The contention of the Revenue is that under Customs Act or Central Excise Act there is no provision which grant jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain any appeal against the order passed by the Chief Commisioner.4. We find that as per provision of Section 129A of the Customs Act the Tribunal can entertain appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority or an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 129A of the Customs Act.Similarly as per provision of Section 35B of Central Excise Act the Tribunal can entertain an appeal against the decision or order passed by the Commissioner or an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. The Appellants fails to show any provision under the Cus...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC71Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, preferred by Revenue, is whether the Aluminium Irrigation Pipes manufactured by M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. are classifiable under sub-heading 7608.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 8424.91 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the common impugned order.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents manufacture aluminium pipes by extrusion process and extrude pipes of the length of 150-160 feet; that thereafter these pipes are cut to required size and aged in aging furnace; that then the process of enfolding and fitting of coupler undertaken so that these pipes can be used in sprinkler system. The learned D.R. further, submitted that the Revenue's case is that before these processes of enfolding and permanently fitting of coupler by adhesive and riveting on the other end of pipe, the base aluminium pipes or plain pipes are being manuf...
Coronation Spinning India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT218TriDel
1. M/s. Coronation Spinning Mills have filed this appeal along with Misc. application. In the Misc. application, there is a request for deciding the matter in accordance with the judgment dt. 12-8-99 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The facts of the case in brief are that this Tribunal by its Order No. A/273/91/NRB, dt. 10-6-91 had held "In the view we have taken this condonation application is rejected and as a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred".Against this order, the applicant went up to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in its order dt. 12-8-99 [1999 (113) EX.T. 376 (S.C.)] ruled "Having heard ld. Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the Tribunal ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits".3. Pursuant to this direction of the Apex Court, the appeal is taken up for consideration on...
Hindustan Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT127TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-appeal dated 18-4-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the exclusion of freight and insurance charges from the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellants during the period 1-10-99 to 31-3-2000 and confirmed demand of Rs. 7,43,694/- with penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel wires, LPG cylinders, S.C. valves and regulators. They supplied goods to the companies namely M/s. IOCL, BPCL and HPCL. They supplied cylinders, S.C. valves and regulators to these companies and despatched to their respective places as suggested by them from time to time. It revealed, on scrutiny of their record, that they did not include freight and insurance charges in the assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the, Excise Act for the period 1-10-99 to 31-3-2000. They were, ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »