Gujarat Court October 1989 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.
Lama Prints Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT179(Guj); (1990)2GLR145; [1991]189ITR174(Guj)
A. P. Ravani, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the manufacture/processing of man-made fabrics with the aid of power which falls under Tariff Item No. 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The factory premises were visited for surprise check by the Officers of the Central Excise Department on September 13, 1984. On verifying the books of account and other relevant records the officer found several irregularities and discrepancies. 2. The Petitioner was served show cause notice and was called upon to show cause as to why excise duty amounting to Rs. 32,43,576.09 ps. should not be recovered on processed man-made fabrics measuring 60,48,662.50 Lmts. valued at Rs. 6,17,66,588.37 ps. The petitioner was also called upon to explain as to why the action mentioned in the show cause notice be not taken. 3. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Collector directed the petitioner to ...
income-tax Bar Association and anr. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Guj)52; [1990]182ITR43(Guj)
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This special civil application prays for waiving of interest since it will be levied without any fault on the part of the assessees, by virtue of sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under section 17B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The situation has arisen due to the fact that the income-tax personnel, from top to bottom, were on strike between September 25, 1989, and October 4, 1989. Any return field after September 30, 1989, will attract interest of 2% per month for the whole of the month of October. The difficulty of the assessees in filing it in time is owing to the fact that the personnel of the Income-tax Department were on strike until October 4, 1989. This special civil application came to be filed on September 29, 1989, itself. Considering the nature of the prayer and also the fact that the assessees cannot be mulcted with interest, we recommend to the third respondent to treat this special civil application as a representation and...
NitIn D. Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR486
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner is a secondary school teacher. On account of reduction in classes on and from February 7, 1987 the petitioner, along with two other teachers, was declared surplus. The petitioner was continued in the school till September, 1988, because there was no vacancy in other schools till then. On termination of the services, the petitioner, along with other two teachers, submitted application before the Secondary Education Tribunal under the provisions of Section 38 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. The petitioner prayed that he was entitled to compensation as provided under Regulation 33 of the Secondary Education Regulation, 1974. The Tribunal held that on account of the proviso introduced in Regulation 33 with effect from April 12, 1988, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation and rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The p...
Natwar Textiles Processors Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR338
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petition has its roots in a show cause notice dated December 28, 1983, alleging that the petitioners have illicitly removed powerloom cotton fabrics (worth about rupees sixty two crores) without payment of Excise Duty. Petitioners lost upto Supreme Court in first round. In second round the petitioners retreated and withdrew the petition unconditionally without permission of the Court to file fresh petition. This is third round, initiated in May, 1986. Petition has. remained at the threshold and the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice have also got stuck up on account of ad interim order passed by this Court.Is the petition maintainable While examining and answering the question let us also try to understand as to why and how the matter has remained at the admission stage till today.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company carrying on the business of Cotton Textile and more particularly textile fabrics, manufactured in power loom sector. Petitione...
Raval Ichchhashanker Mahashanker Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)1GLR291
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Both these Special Civil Applications question the vires of Rule 2(a) of the Senior Food Inspector (Food and Drugs Control Administration) Recruitment Rules, 1987, as offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to Mr. J.V. Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 2(a) for the purpose of promoting to the Senior Food Inspector grade offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since persons working as Food Inspectors must get equal opportunity for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. This Rule 2(a) of the Senior Food Inspector (Food and Drugs Control Administration) Recruitment Rules, 1987 reads as follows:2. Appointment to the post of the Senior Food Inspector, in Food and Drugs Control Administration, Gujarat State, Class-II shall be made either:(a) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the per...
Vijay Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas597(Guj); (1990)1GLR557
Ravani, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is an existing company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 were managing directors of petitioner No. 1-company. The petitioner-company runs a textile mill. In respect of sales of the petitioner-company, sales tax liability for the period commencing from December, 1986, to June, 1987, had arisen and an amount of Rs. 1,84,220 had fallen due and payable by the company. Quarterly returns were filed by the company but the amount has not been paid by it. Therefore, under the provisions of rule 78 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970, the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence of not complying with the provisions of rule 31 of the aforesaid rules (in the petition wrongly translated as section of the Rules). Therefore, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, exercising the power conferred upon him under the provisions of section 27(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, read with rule 79 of the aforesaid Rules, sanctioned t...
Atlas Laminate Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC192; 1991(51)ELT251(Guj); (1990)1GLR244
Ravani, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. The petitioner firm is manufacturing bituminised water-proof packing paper. The petitioners pray for a declaration to the effect that bituminised water-proof packing is not liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 17 of the Tariff Schedule annexed to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also pray for an appropriate injunction restraining the respondents-authorities from levying and recovering excise duty from the petitioners on the said article. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that bituminised water-proof packing paper is the result of bonding of two kraft papers with the help of bitumen. In Para 2.1 of the petition the process of manufacture is described as follows :- 'Bitumen is applied on one layer of kraft paper and another layer of kraft paper is stuck to it and pressed together.' No further details as regards manufacturing process is mentioned in the petition. It is conte...
Sattar Habib Hamdani Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: 1990LC541(Gujarat); 1992(61)ELT220(Guj); (1990)1GLR205
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Three trucks loaded with contraband articles such as fabrics, car-tape stereo, telephone sets, wrist watches, etc. collectively valued at Rs. 27,39,050/- were intercepted by Porbander Police. The trucks were handed over to the officers of the Customs Department, which in turn seized the goods found therein. In follow up action 80 packages of contraband goods valued at Rs. 24,30,875/- were recovered from the factory premises belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner and others were served with show cause notices calling upon them as to why action proposed to be taken in the notice be not taken against them. 2. The Collector of Customs, as per his order dated June 20, 1984 directed to confiscate the goods and imposed penalty of different amounts on different persons. A penalty of Rs. 10 lacs had been imposed upon the petitioner under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Against the aforesaid order of imposition of penalty, the petitioner preferre...
Aslambhai Ibrahimbhai Memon and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1787; (1990)1GLR150
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order of conviction under Section 20(b)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the sentence to each of the two accused in R. I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and in default to pay fine, further R. I. for six months passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat on September 21, 1988 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1988.2. The facts of the case in short, are as under:2.1. On February 23, 1988 when Police Inspector Shri V.N. Desai was in his D.C.B. Office, he received secret information to the effect that one Aslam Ibrahim residing at Chowk Bazar, Madariwad was doing business of Charas and that, on that day, in the evening, a big quantity was to be received. At that time, Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri Cehiot and Police Sub-Inspector Shri Vyas, Shri Sevale and Shri Valvi were also present. Accordingly, two panchas were called and they were also made to understand about the raid, and they went...
Siyaram Gopichand Gupta and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2435; (1990)2GLR905
ORDERR.J. Shah, J.1. The above Criminal Revision Applications are directed against the order dated 16-6-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh below Ex. 3 in Prabas Patan Police Station Crime Register No. 100 of 1989.2. The facts leading to the present applications are as under:--A first information report was lodged on 8-10-1988 by one Gyanchandra Trikamdas Bhanudas against Chimanlal Bhaichandbhai Limbachiya; Badriparasad Shankerlal Maniar; Siyaram Gopichand Gupta, Rajendraprasad Gopichand Gupta, Bupendra Munnalal Shah and Dhanpal Babulal Shah of Krishna Trading Company. The aforesaid Chimanlal Bhaichandbhai Limbachiya has filed aforesaid Criminal Revision Application No. 219 of 1989; aforesaid Siyaram Gopichand Gupta, Rajendraprasad Gopichand Gupta and Bhupendra Munnalal Shah have filed aforesaid Criminal Revision Application No. 218 of 1989, aforesaid Badriprasad Shankerlal Maniar has filed aforesaid Criminal Revision Application No. 220 of 1989; and aforesaid Dhanpa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›