Gujarat Court November 1964 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 Gujarat Vs. Chhotalal Pitambardas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR176
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted under Chapter 19 Rule 1(b) read with Schedule Chapter 14 Rule 31 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. Under Section 481 of the Act the Commissioner may take proceedings under the Act. Under Section 69 of the Act Municipal Officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers etc. of the Commissioner. In this case the Commissioner has sanctioned the filing of a complaint vide Ex. 26 but the complaint has been filed by the Sanitary Inspector. In view of Sections 481 and 69 of the Act it is open to the Commissioner to delegate the function of filing a complaint to an officer of the Municipality. He has not done so. It is contended that the order sanctioning the complaint is itself to be construed as an order of delegation. Ordinarily speaking such a sanction cannot be treated as an order of delegation. But even as...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Tamakuwala and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC390(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the State under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The facts which have been found by the Tribunal are few and may be briefly stated at the outset, for having regard to those facts, it is not possible to see how any conclusion other than that in favour of the assessee can be reached in this reference. Prior to 3rd April, 1954, the respondent-firm, which consisted of five partners, carried on business at two places, namely, Vasad in Kaira District and Padra in Baroda District. The business at Vasad was carried on in the name of Messrs Tamakuwala & Sons, and that at Padra was carried on in the name of Messrs Trikamal Nagardas Tamakuwala. The respondent-firm was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and was liable to pay tax on sales effected by it in the course of its business. On 3rd April, 1954, the respondent-firm was dissolved and under an arrangement arrived at between the partners, the business of t...
State of Gujarat Vs. Tamakuwala and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj56
ORDER1. This is a reference made at the instance of the State under S. 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1958. The facts which have been found by the Tribunal are few and may be briefly stated at the outset, for having regard to those facts, it is not possible to see how any conclusion other than that in favour of the assessee can be reached in this reference. Prior to 3rd April 1954, the respondent firm, which consisted of five partners, carried on business at two places, namely, Vasad in Kalra District and Padra in Baroda District. The business at Vasad was carried on in the name of Messrs. Tamakuwala & Sons, and that at Padra was carried on in the name of Messrs, Trikamlal Nagardas Tamakuwala. The respondent firm was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and was liable to pay tax on sales effected by it in the course of its business. On 3rd April 1954, the respondent firm was dissolved and under an arrangement arrived at between the partners, the business of the responde...
A.A. Jariwala and Brothers Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj253
Shelat, C.J. (1) The question arising in this reference is whether the contract between the applicants and their customers, Messrs Pacific Traders, amounts to a works contract or whether it was a composite contract involving sale by the applicants to their customers of embroidery materials and of doing embroidery work. The reference arises out of an application made by thee applicants to the Deputy Commissioner under S.27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 in respect of a bill No.94 dated 6th February 1953.(2) Sixty-six sari pieces were sent to the applicants by Messrs. Pacific Traders of Bombay for getting embroidery work done on them. Prior to the despatch of these saris, Messrs. Pacific Traders had given specific instructions to the applicants as to the designs and the type of work of embroidery which they required on these saris. On the arrival of the saris at Surat, the applicants paid the requisite octroi duty and delivered the sari pieces to embroidery workers who were to be paid...
S. Tajbhai and Sons Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC133(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. The applicants carry on business as dealers inter alia in steel trunks at Rajkot. The applicants are registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and hold registration certificate No. 56 RJC-672 dated 14th January, 1960. The applicants sold two steel trunks one twenty-one inches long and other twenty-seven inches long in the course of their business under a bill bearing No. 03825 and dated 17th August, 1961, and submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the Act for the determination of the sales tax payable on the sale of the said goods. The applicants contended before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax that the steel trunks sold by the applicants were not suit-cases within the meaning of entry 12 of Schedule E and were, therefore, covered by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E which applied to all kinds of goods not specified in any entry in any of the Schedules of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax negatived ...
The Marsden Spg. and Co. Ltd. Vs. L.V. Pol, Supdt Central Excise (Tex. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR350
J.B. Mehta, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ or order to quash the fresh notice of demand for excise duty dated November 13, 1961 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise after the disposal of the petitioners appeal.2. The petitioner-Mills-company owns a cotton textile mill at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was served with a notice dated February 23 1960 to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for contravention of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) on the ground that it had not written correct accounts in R.G. 1 register and that the said R.G. 1 record and the folding reports of cloth folded in the mills disclosed variations as per the details supplied in the said notice. The mills-company in its explanation dated March 2 1960 explained the said variation on the ground that 63452 length yards being not properly processed were sent for rebleaching and refol...
Swastik Textile Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), New Delhi a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj116; (1965)GLR458
1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal directed against the decree, dated 28th January 1960, passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1958 from the decree in Civil Suit No. 1702 of 1956 by which the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the decree passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad, dismissing the suit of plaintiff-appellant with costs. Plaintiff is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendants-respondents are Union of India, State of Gujarat, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, and Provident Funds Inspector, Ahmedabad. The main dispute between plaintiff and defendants is about the applicability to plaintiff of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, Act No. 19 of 1952 (here after called 'the Act'). In order to understand the dispute between the parties, it will be useful to state a few facts. At the relevant time,...
A.A. Jariwala and Bros. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC942(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. The question arising in this reference is whether the contract between the applicants and their customers, Messrs Pacific Traders, amounts to a works contract or whether it was a composite contract involving sale by the applicants to their customers of embroidery materials and of doing embroidery work. The reference arises out of an application made by the applicants to the Deputy Commissioner under section 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, in respect of a bill No. 94 dated 6th February, 1958. 2. Sixty-six sari pieces were sent to the applicants by Messrs Pacific Traders of Bombay for getting embroidery work done on them. Prior to the despatch of these saris, Messrs Pacific Traders had given specific instructions to the applicants as to the designs and the type of work of embroidery which they required on those saris. On the arrival of the saris at Surat, the applicants paid the requisite octroi duty and delivered the sari pieces to embroidery workers who were to be ...
C. Gokaldas and Co. and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-16-1964
Reported in: (1965)0GLR601; [1966]17STC138(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in these references is whether the assessees are entitled to remission of purchase tax paid by them on purchase of raw tobacco under rule 12(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954. The assessees in these references are different but the question involved is the same and it would therefore be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. In each of the references the assessees purchased raw tobacco from unregistered dealers on which they were assessed to purchase tax under section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax At, 1953. The assessees after purchasing raw tobacco subjected it to the process of grading by passing it through sieves and removing stones and dust from it and as a result of this, what came into being was processed tobacco known as bidi pattis. The assessees thereafter sold bidi pattis and despatched them to addressees outside the State of Bombay in the course of inter-S...
Saraswati Oil Mills Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-1964
Reported in: [1966]18STC163(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. The two questions referred to us in this reference for out opinion are :- (1) Whether the proviso to rule 11(1A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, in so far as it requires that the goods purchased should be used in the manufacture of goods specified in entries 19 to 80 (both inclusive) of Schedule B to the Act is in excess of the rule-making power of the Government and is to that extent ultra vires of section 18B of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, set-off is a admissible to the applicant-mill of the general sales tax and the purchase tax paid by the applicant-mill on the purchases of groundnuts under the provisions of rule 11(1A) read with section 18B(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, irrespective of the proviso to that rule. 3. The applicants at the material time carried on the business of manufacturing edible oil from groundnuts. The period of assessment being th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »