Gujarat Court November 1978 Judgments
Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. C.N. Vaishnav
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR694(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. This application under art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the order dated August 21, 1978, passed by the respondent herein under s. 264(1) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1967-68. 2. The petitioner's case as set out herein is that it is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of textiles. The respondent is the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the petitioner. Prior to 1956, the petitioner had installed certain machinery and plant and in respect thereof had claimed normal depreciation as well as initial depreciation as provided by the I.T. Act, which was then in force. The ITO was allowing depreciation, both initial and ordinary, as per his own calculations from year to year. It has been provided in the I.T. Act that the initial depreciation granted would not reduce the written down value of the assets on which it is granted. The ITO in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 1962-63 grante...
Tag this Judgment!ilaben Ramanlal Zariwala Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)0GLR357; [1979]118ITR854(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the action of the State Bank of India, Surat Branch, in not paying to her an amount of Rs. 56,000 in exchange for high denomination notes, for which originally the Ordinance called the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978, was promulgated by the President and subsequently the Ordinance having been replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. The case of the petitioner is that she is the sole proprietor of the firm called Shreejee Diamond Industries and she carries on business at Mahidharpura, Zaveri Bazar, Surat. According to her, the petitioner's business is of diamond cutting and she earns livelihood from the income thereof. The petitioner, according to her, is an income-tax payer and has filed income-tax returns for the assessment year 1978-79, ending 31st March, 1978. According to the petitioner, she received a demand draft for Rs. 6...
Tag this Judgment!ilaben Ramanlal Zariwala Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Guj)217; [1979]118ITR852(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - In this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the action of the State Bank of India, Surat Branch, in not paying to her an amount of Rs. 56,000 in exchange for high denomination notes, for which originally the Ordinance called the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978, was promulgated by the President and subsequently the Ordinance having been replaced by the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. The case of the petitioner is that she is the sole proprietor of the firm called Shreejee Diamond Industries and she carries on business at Mahidharpura, Zaveri Bazar, Surat. According to her, the petitioners business is of diamond cutting and she earns livelihood from the income thereof. The petitioner, according to her, is an income-tax payer and has filed income-tax returns for the assessment year 1978-79, ending 31st March, 1978. According to the petitioner, she received a demand draft for Rs. 65,0...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Taluka Co-operative Cotton-sale Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC63(Guj)
Desai, J.1. In this reference made under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a product known as anand pashu ahar sold by the applicant would be covered by entry 11 of Schedule II-Part B to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as held by the Tribunal or it would be covered by entry 21 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, read with entry 25 of the Government notification issued under section 49 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as contended by the applicant ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society carrying on business of ginning and pressing cotton and producing cotton-seed oil as also a product known as anand pashu ahar (hereinafter referred to as 'the ahar' for the sake of convenien...
Tag this Judgment!Nowroji N. Vakil and Co. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)43GLR238
Desai, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raises a question which has to be resolved ultimately on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the term 'taxable goods' in clause (33) of section 2 of the Act. In order to appreciate the problem in its proper perspective, a few need to be set out. 2. The assessee, which is a company manufacturing stoneware pipes, firebricks and lime, is a registered dealer. In the manufacture of the aforesaid goods, fireclay, which has been loosely referred to as 'earth' by the Tribunal, is required to be used as a raw material. The said raw material is taxable goods under the residuary entry 13 of Schedule III at the rate specified therein. The assessee used to purchase the said goods on payment of tax as well as against declarations in form 19 without payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Jivanbhai Khushalbhai and ors. Vs. Gulam Mohmed Farookh Gulam MohinddI ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR726
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal's judgment, Annexure C, dated 7-8-75 passed by the Tribunal in the Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 612 of 1974. The petitioners are the respondents in that petition and they are the three sons and a widow of one Khushalbhai Mavabhai, who admittedly was the tenant on three Section Nos. 29/1,34/2 and 329/2, all situated in village Digas, Mahal Hansot of Broach District.2. In order to understand the moot point that has arisen in this petition, a few facts require to be clearly stated because the ultimate decision one way or the other depends on the basic, but admitted, facts. Deceased tenant Khushalbhai admittedly died on 21-5-63. The respondent-landlord admittedly had procured a certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy Act and, therefore, was a certified landlord and, therefore, as a necessary corollary deceased Khushalbhai was an excluded tenant. The certific...
Tag this Judgment!NizamuddIn Suleman Vs. New Shorrock Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd., Nadi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: [1979(39)FLR287]; (1979)0GLR290; (1979)IILLJ36Guj
Divan, C.J.1. The Division Bench consisting of one of us (A. D. Desai, J.) and N. H. Bhatt J., has passed the following order of reference to a Full Bench in Special Civil Application No. 936 of 1975 with Special Civil Application No. 1122 of 1973 : 'In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court which are prima facie not reconcilable and far-reaching effect of the point of law involved, these two writ petitions are referred to the Full Bench'. The order of reference then sets out the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the difficulty was felt particularly because of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central India Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1604 and the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. R. K. Shukla, [1969-II L.L.J. 728]; A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 237. The main point which is involved in this case is the exact scope of the proceedings before the Labour Court in proceedings under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Thakor Dolatsinh Jivansinh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR346
A.D. Desai, J.1. The question involved is one of interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which came into force on August 15, 1950. The question is common in all these appeals and, therefore, it can be disposed of by this common judgment.2. The relevant facts shortly stated are that the lands in dispute formed part of the former Vaghpur Taluqdari Estate. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and their case was that the suit lands were given to them as tenants for cultivation in May 1947 and the day on which the Act came into force, they held the suit lands as tenants. On the Act coming into force, an inquiry under Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was undertaken by the Mamlatdar, who held that the relation of the plaintiffs with the Taluqdar was that of landlord and tenant since May 1947 and, therefore, the suit lands did not vest in the State Governme...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipkumar Kiritkumar and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: [1980]45STC318(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, this reference has been made to us under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. We will state a few facts which have led to this reference before we set out the question referred to us, so that the question can be appreciated in its proper perspective. 2. The opponent is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and carrying on business in handloom, art-silk and silk jari saris as wholesaler and retailer. By bill No. 123 of 26th November, 1971, the assessee had sold two saris described as (i) Banarsi georgette sari for Rs. 300.25 and (ii) Banarsi katarwa sari for Rs. 441.87 (which are hereinafter referred to as 'first sari' and 'second sari' respectively for the sake of convenience). The first sari is said to contain the following materials by weight : 37 per cent viscose rayon, 35 per cent metallic, and 28 per cent silk. Similarly, the second sari was said to contain the following materials : 59 per cent metallic, 23...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS175D; 1979(4)ELT608(Guj)
S.B. Majumdar, J.1. A short but interesting question in the present petition is whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner-company, namely, wired glass, figured glass, rolled glass, coloured figured glass, coolex figured glass and coolex wired glass belong to the category of sheet glass, and whether they are liable to be subjected to excise duty under tariff item 23A(l) of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'* * * *9. Now the main contention of Mr. C.T. Daru, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-company, is that the disputed items of glass manufactured by the petitioner-company can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be sheet glass and consequently tariff item 23A could never apply to these items. It was contended by Mr. Daru that figured glass, rolled glass, wired glass, coolex figured glass, coloured figured glass and coolex wired glass manufactured by the petitioner-company are different from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »