Gujarat Court September 1981 Judgments
Malhotra Iron and Steel Industries, Ahmedabad Vs. M.M. Gupta and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: 1988(33)ELT344(Guj); (1982)1GLR738
P.D. Desai, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decision of M.C. Trivedi, J. rendered on Nov. 21, 1977 in First Appeal No. 871 of 1975. By the impugned decision, the decree dated Sept. 20, 1974 passed by the Judge, Sixth Court, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, declaring that the demand notice dated April 4, 1967 whereunder a sum of Rs. 4,917/- was claimed from the appellant-plaintiff as excise duty, was illegal and unenforceable and restraining the respondents-defendants by a permanent injunction from recovering from the appellant-plaintiff any amount pursuant to the said notice. In the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendants' respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff was that it carried on business as re-rollers of iron and steel products out of duty paid materials in combination with old and used re-rollable scrap. The finished product manufactured by the plaintiff is an excisable item under Tariff Item 26AA...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Push Colour and Chemical Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC158(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the State Government, the following question is referred to us under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sales of dyes after mixing it with gobar salt, soda-bi-carb and soda-ash amount to resales of goods within the meaning of section 2(26) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, in the same form or in a different form or amount to sales of goods manufactured within the meaning of section 2(16) of the Act and whether the deduction claimed by the opponent of resales of goods purchased from registered dealers is admissible ?' 2. The question arose in the course of the assessment of the assessee, a dealer reselling dyes and chemicals after diluting the concentration of the dyes by adding certain quantity of gobar salt, soda-bi-carb or soda-ash in the said dyes purchased by it from the registered dealers. The dyes with the reduced strengt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Siddharth J. Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)148; [1983]139ITR628(Guj)
Desai, J. 1. The familiar but vexed question raises its head again in this reference : Was a piece or parcel of land held by the assessee 'agricultural land' so that the surplus realised on the sale thereof was not chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains' The question arose in the course of the proceedings for the assessee's assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1969-70, the previous year being the financial year ended March 31, 1968. The question is required to be answered in the light of the facts set out hereunder. 2. The assessee, who ordinarily resides at Ahmedabad had purchased along with another person a piece or parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 15, 054 sq. yards (approximately 3 acres 4 gunthas) situate in village Bilimora for a total consideration of Rs. 43,989. The conveyance was executed on August 18, 1965. The assessee had an undivided one-third share in the said piece or parcel of land and he contributed a sum of Rs. 15,400 towards the cons...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC310(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. At the instance of the State Government this reference has been made to us under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act'). This reference arises out of the common judgment and order of the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal delivered in Second Appeal No. 374 of 1974 with Second Appeal No. 34 of 1975. The said two appeals arose out of the two orders of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmedabad - one under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (being Second Appeal No. 374 of 1974), and another under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (being Second Appeal No. 34 of 1975). The assessment period with which we are concerned in this reference is the financial year 1965-66. These appeals were preferred by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The objects of the said Commission, inter alia, are to explore the oil and gas deposits; to extract natural gas and crude oil from gas wells and oil wells located in different parts of the country and...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat University, Ahmedabad and Etc. Vs. Sonal P. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj58; (1982)1GLR171
1. By our order dated 11-9-1981, we had summarily rejected the above four Misc. Civil applications for review of the order passed by the then Chief Justice B. J. Divan and myself as per Our judgment dated 18-8-1981 in the special civil applications Nos. 2530 and 2779 of 1981 : (reported in AIR 1982 Guj 37) First of those two Petitions was filed by four students, three of whom were regular students of M. A. Part I whereas the fourth student was an external student for the said examination. In the second petition, the petitioners were the external students of the very examination. The subject matter of the challenge in the first of the two Petitions was the decision of the Gujarat University purporting to be dated 19-6-1981, pursual to which the University had decided to grant mass promotions to its students, who were in the first year and second year of B. A., B. Sc. and B. Com. courses and who were the students of M. A., M. Sc and M. Com. Part I examinations, but in respect of postgrad...
Tag this Judgment!Pokardas and Brothers and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC88(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee in Sales Tax Reference No. 12 of 1978, the following question is referred to us for our opinion under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gujarat Act' for the sale of brevity) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that tarpaulins are not prepared from cotton fabrics or textile fabrics, and therefore, their sales amounting to Rs. 31,775 are not covered by entry 18(a) of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as contended by the applicant but are covered by entry 13 of Schedule III to the said Act as held by the sales tax authorities ?' 2. The question arises in the following circumstances : The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is from 6th May, 1970, to 31st March, 1971. The assessee is a dealer reselling cotton canvas cloth, hosiery, rain coats, eyelets, tarpaulins, etc. In the course of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Nandiniben Narottamdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Guj)200; [1983]140ITR16(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the follows in three questions of law of the opinion of this court: For the assessment year 1967-68 '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the shares of profits in the firm of M/s. Amrit Chemicals added by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year in question ?' 2. For assessment years 1968-69 & 1969-70 '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the share of profits in the firms of M/s. Amrit Chemicals added by the Income-tax officer for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the share of profits in the firm of M/s. Star Radio and Electric Co., added by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?' 3. Three assessment years are involved herein, as indicated by the question themse...
Tag this Judgment!Sonal V. Shah Vs. M.P. Thakkar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj52; (1981)22GLR1038
P.D. Desai, J.1. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of Rule 6 of Part 1, Chapter I of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side. 1960, which are the law in force, and the order dated September 1, 1981 passed by the learned Chief Justice in exercise of the powers conferred by the said rule where under a review application, being Miscellaneous Application No. 434 of 1981, which was pending for admission before a Division Bench, was referred to a Full Bench consisting of himself, N. H. Bhatt, J. and a third learned Judge. Be it stated at the outset that though we have referred above to Rule 6, in the course of the impugned order as well as in the petition, the said rule has been erroneously referred to as Rule 2 (6). In order to appreciate the merit of the important questions which arises for consideration, a few facts require to be stated.2. The petitioners herein had instituted Special Civil Appln. No. 2530 of 1981 whi...
Tag this Judgment!Gandabhai Jinabhai Vs. Ramubhai Fakirbhai (by Lrs.)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj142; (1982)1GLR531
ORDER1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 1977 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.). Surat. He gave application - Exh 40 by which he requested the Judge to frame two issues and refer those issues to the Tenancy Court under the provisions contained in S. 85 Of cultural referred to as the Act). The learned Civil Judge rejected that application on the ground that the suit was of 1977 and the issues were framed on 4-7-1978 and thereafter also after death of the original defendant, the defendants who are the heirs adopted the written statement. Those issues were confirmed and thereafter this particular application was given. Being aggrieved by that order passed, the plaintiff has filed this petition.2. The learned advocate Shri D. D. Vyas appearing on behalf of the defendants strongly opposed this petition mainly on the following grounds:-(1) Such a petition, is not maintainable under the provisions contained in S. 115 of the Civil P. C_ as the...
Tag this Judgment!Rukshamaniben and ors. Vs. Masaraji Amaraji Thakore and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj260; (1982)1GLR525
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. In this appeal question of some importance of computing the compensation in case of the death of an agriculturist-cum-social worker arises.* * * * *2. The appellants who are the heirs of deceased Govindbhai, filed a claim petition, being Motor Accidents Claims Application No. 115 of 1978, before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. IV, Ahmedabad, claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000. The learned Tribunal, however, awarded only an amount of Rs. 8,600 and hence this appeal.3. to 9. x x x x10. This evidence shows that the deceased was an agriculturist as well as a social worker. After his death, though the agricultural lands have remained, the question of reduction in income due to the non-availability of supervising power of the deceased who was the owner, cannot be ignored. Recently we have decided one appeal, being First Appeal No. 1286 of 1980 in Dehiben v. Chitrabhai Onkarbhai Makwana on 31-81981: (reported in AIR 1982 Guj 1881. Therein, while relying on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »