Gujarat Court February 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Godhra Electricity Co. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Guj)141; [1983]140ITR657(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. These three references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, raise a common question for determination in the backdrop of the following facts. 2. The Government of Bombay granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to a concern known a Lady Sulochna Chinubhai & Company on November 19, 1922, authorizing it to generate and supply electricity to the consumers in Godhra. The assessee is the successor of the said licensee. After the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, came into force, a rating committee was constituted under s. 57(2) thereof at the request of the assessee on January 19, 1950. On the recommendation of the said committee certain charges were fixed with effect from February 1, 1952. Thereafter the Electricity (Supply) Act was amended sometime in 1956. The assessee unilaterally increased the charges for motive power with effect from January 1, 1963, to 35np. per unit with a minimum of Rs. 7 per month for every installation. A few months thereafter, that ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Kolithad Juth Sevadayi Sahakari Mandali Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC375(Guj)
Surti, J. 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred to us the following questions of law for our determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reassessment proceedings as initiated on 22nd September, 1975, by serving the opponent with a statutory notice in the prescribed form 28, after the expiry of the period of limitation of five years as computed from 30th June, 1970, was barred by limitation in terms of clause (c) of section 35(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the longer period of limitation of eight years to start reassessment proceedings against the opponent under clause (b) of section 35(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was not available to the department and in accordingly holding that the opponent's sales of groundnuts worth Rs. 1,07,376 as made to M/s. Shah Tradin...
Tag this Judgment!Vadodara Jilla Hybrid Utpadkoni Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC108(Guj)
Shukla, J. 1. To start with, we may state the relevant facts which have given rise to a group of reference cases. The applicant, M/s. Vadodara Jilla Hybrid Utpadkoni Sahakari Mandali Limited, is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and is also registered as a dealer under section 29(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'. The applicant carries on business to resell cotton-seeds, fertilisers, cloth bags, etc., at Vadodara. 2. During the period of account from 30th March, 1974, to 31st October, 1974, the applicant had, inter alia, sold empty cloth bags to its members at a nominal price (which was less than Rs. 10 per bag) and had recovered Rs. 2,55,812 as sale price of those empty cloth bags. 3. The cloth bags which were sold by the applicant-society to its members contained a printed matter thereon to the effect that they contained certified seeds, Hybrid-4, Shanker-4, District Baroda, 1975. They further ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Tea Mart Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC14(Guj)
Surti, J. 1. The following questions of law are referred to us by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these two cases, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business done by the abovenamed Chimanlal was really the business of the applicant and whether that finding was vitiated by taking into account irrelevant evidence and by ignoring the relevant evidence as alleged (2) If yes, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these two cases, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the levy of tax upon the applicant's turnover of sales as worked out from the purchases of Rs. 2,40,067 of M/s. Anil & Co. so far as Samvat Year 2024 was concerned and purchases of Rs. 1,37,824 of M/s. Anil & Co. so far as Samvat Year 2025 was concerned (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these two cases, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the penalties imposed under section 36(3A) of the Bombay Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Engineering Ltd. Vs. the Controller of Patents Office, New Delhi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj250; (1982)2GLR14
Surti, J. 1. A short and a neat point adversely affecting a citizen's legal right for being heard only in opposition proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970 arises in these two matters for our consideration,2. Both the aforesaid matters are disposed of by this common judgment as desired by the learned advocates of the parties.3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner - Anup Engineering Ltd. - before us, a few relevant facts may be stated.4. The petitioner-Company in manufacturing machines of several types, and is having its registered office at Anil Starch's Premises, Anil Road, Post Box No. 1164, Ahmedabad. It may be also stated at this stage that respondent No. 3 - 'Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.' - is having its office at 18.20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.5. The case which was put up before us discloses that respondent No. 3 made an application to the Controller of Patents having its office at Municipal Market Building, III Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on Oct. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!Dayalal Trikamlal Mali Vs. Harjivandas Madhavji Mali and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: (1982)2GLR305
S.L. Talati, J.1. This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), at Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1966 on 7-9-1976. The appellant is the original defendant, while the respondents are the original plaintiffs. The short facts which gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as under:2. The plaintiffs and the defendant had entered into a partnership agreement exh. 82 on 29-3-1961. The parties had kept one contract in the name of the defendant regarding murrum work on Rajasthali-Bhandaria road in Palitana District Bhavnagar. The defendant had 50% share in that partnership and each of the plaintiffs had 25% share. That partnership was for that particular work only. It was specifically provided in the deed that so soon as the work is completed the partnership, would stand dissolved automatically. That work was completed. The final bill was prepared and thereafter the amount was not paid though notice, dated 17-9-1966 was addressed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sales Limited Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: [1982]49STC360(Guj)
Surti, J.1. The following questions of law are referred to us by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad : '(1) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 0.5 KVA autovolters were accessories of a refrigerator and, therefore, sales thereof were covered by entry 76 of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as it then stood (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 4 KVA autovolters were accessories of an air-conditioner having 1.5 tonne capacity and, therefore, sales thereof were covered by entry 69 of Schedule II, Part A, to the said Act, as it then stood (3) Whether, on the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the case of the applicant that the disputed autovolters were covered by entry 41 of Schedule II, Part A, or entry 16(2) of Schedule II, Part A, to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Sons and Co. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC12(Guj)
Surti, J. 1. The following questions of law are referred to us by the Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transaction of sales of the disputed storage tanks for Rs. 75,000 in all was a transaction of sales of 'empties' or of such other goods .... which is ancillary or incidental to' the applicant's principal trade, within the meaning of the relevant words used in the definition of 'business' given in clause (ii) of section 2(4) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and, therefore, it was the applicant's business, as so defined (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant had sold the above storage tanks in connection with its business and that, therefore, it was a 'dealer' thereof as defined in section 2(10) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and in accordingly including sale price of the above storage tanks amounting to Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Shantilal Shah Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas70(Guj); (1982)2GLR284
Thakkar, C.J. 1. To stay or not to stay is the question. Granting stay will mean : (1) continued unemployment, starvation, suffering and misery for about 4,000 workers who are jobless since the mill closed down about 18 months back and was ordered to be wound up as its economic substratum had disappeared. (2) None-production of a commodity essential for the community-cloth. (3) continued locking up of a productive unit which is being restarted after a lapse of about 18 months. (4) Blocking the stepping up or giving boost to economic activity in a town like Bhavnagar. 2. Refusing stay subject to the result of the appeal will mean : (1) No prejudice to any one (the official liquidator,m the secured creditors and the workers all are ad idem that the management of the industrial unit in question should be taken over by the Central Govt.) Inn fact mp material was placed before the learned judge to show that any prejudice would be caused to the appellant. IT was not even argued that there wo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Spunpipe and Construction C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)142; [1983]141ITR246(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee is carrying on business in the name and style of Spunpipe & Construction Co. (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd., and had supplied certain items to the Government during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee received from the Pay and Accounts Officer, Calcutta, the price of the items so supplied which was in excess to the extent of Rs. 31,695. The assessee placed this amount in the suspense account where it remained till it was brought to the profit and loss a/c in the relevant year, that is, assessment year 1971-72. The ITO treated the said amount as the income of the assessee liable to tax in the said assessment year. The AAC also took the same view in appeal. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', took the view that so far as the amount of Rs. 31,695 is concerned, the payment was made to the assessee under mistake and hence such payment could not be treated as a trading receipt. According to the Tribunal the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »