Gujarat Court December 1981 Judgments
Hemchandbhai and Co. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC274(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The assessee was a dealer registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). It carried on the business of oil-seeds, jira, variali, etc., at Patan in Mehsana District. By an order made on 4th January, 1967, in exercise of the power conferred by section 32(1) of the Bombay Act read with rules 24 and 29 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rules'), the competent authority permitted the assessee to furnish, with effect from the date of the said order, returns in form 18 for the periods specified in column 1 of the schedule forming part of the order (in lieu of the quarterly returns) on or before the dates specified in column 2 of the said schedule on the condition that the assessee should pay the amounts specified in column 3 of the said schedule on or before the date specified in column 4 thereof. The said sche...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Guru Industries Vs. K.J. Raval, S.T.O., Jamnagar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR539; [1983]53STC392(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-firm prays for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer-3, Division II, Jamnagar, of 5th May, 1979, seeking to cancel the recognition certificate bearing No. R-701-R-008 with effect from 31st May, 1979, since the petitioner-firm had failed to maintain correct and complete books of account of the business as required under section 58(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act'). 2. In order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned order of cancellation of the recognition certificate of the petitioner-firm, a few facts need be set out. The petitioner-firm is a dealer registered under the Gujarat Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It also hold recognition certificate under the Gujarat Act. It is claimed by the petitioner-firm that is annual turnover of the sales was more tha...
Tag this Judgment!Hukumat Rai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR641; (1983)ILLJ384Guj
1. On selection by the Gujarat Public Service Commission the petitioner was appointed on probation as a Medical Officer, Class II, in Gujarat Public Health Service in the pay scale of Rs. 425-850. In course of time he successfully completed the probation period and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1st March, 1971, vide Annexure to the petition. It then appears that by an order dated 18th March, 1978, Annexure IV, the Government was pleased to appoint the petitioner as the District Family Planning Medical Officer in Class I in the pay scale of Rs. 500-1250 on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner completed his probation and was confirmed in service in the said post. Thereafter by a letter dated 15th September, 1975, Annexure VIII, the petitioner tendered his resignation with effect from 16th September, 1975. Instead of giving one month's notice as required by the relevant Rules, he deposited one month's salary in the Government Treasury at Surat in ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Parmar Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR352; (1983)ILLJ261Guj
Thakkar, C.J. 1. What the enlightened Legislature gave in its wisdom in the context of the felt needs of the time (the power u/s. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to reduce the punishment of dismissal or removal from service imposed on an industrial worker by an employer in a departmental proceeding) has been taken away by the Labour Court. Taken away inter alia on the ground that the power can be exercised only provided the worker, (1) does not contest the proceedings, (2) pleads guilty and, (3) seeks mercy. And that provides the necessity for spelling out the principles for the exercise of these vital powers in the true spirit of the legislation. 2. The question has arisen in the context of dismissal of an employee of the Gujarat Electricity Board working as a Helper for more than ten years at its Narol Sub-Station, by an order passed by the Executive Engineer, Narol, as per Annexure 'C' dated January 31, 1975. The order of dismissal was passed in the context of two charges, namely...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›