Gujarat Court December 1994 Judgments
Subodhchandra and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR95(Guj)
1. Rule returnable on January 23, 1995. 2. Before any interim relief could be granted, learned counsel appearing for the parties have argued the matter at length on the question of jurisdiction. On the question of interim relief, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss in the international market if, pending hearing and disposal of this petition, the gold ornaments seized by the respondents are not released. He submitted that the purpose of seizure and inquiry would at the most be to find out whether the ornaments were purchased from undisclosed income, and if it is held that the same were purchased from undisclosed income, then the value of the said ornaments is required to be included in the income, and the assessee is required to be taxed as provided under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He, therefore, submitted that, in the interest of justice and to see that the petitioner does not suffer...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Collector of Customs (P), Kandla Vs. Wong Ah Boo
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1994
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT453(Guj); (1995)1GLR518
1. These two appeals, first one an appeal for the enhancement of sentence by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Kandla (Original Complainant), preferred before this Court, and second one by the Sumhadi Bin Maoris (the original accused No. 3) before the Sessions Court. Kachchh, at Bhuj (subsequently transferred to this Court), are directed against the common judgment and order, dated 3-12-1992 rendered in C. C. No. 2836 of 1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kachchh, at Bhuj, wherein three respondents, namely, Wong Ah Boo, Asmi Firmanto, Sumhadi Bin Maoris who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, under Section 5(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and under Section 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on their pleading guilty to the charge were convicted for the same and sentenced to undergo sentence of various rigorous imprisonments and ...
Tag this Judgment!Vareli Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1994
Reported in: 1997(91)ELT279(Guj); (1996)2GLR134
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioners are mill companies engaged in the business of manufacture of synthetic fabric. For the purpose of their business they import yarn called polyester filament yarn from different countries. On this imported item, the respondents are levying and collecting cess on textiles at the rate of 0.05% ad valorem. This cess is levied on the additional duty of customs which is being levied and collected as provided under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8195 of 1988 contends that an amount of Rs. 30,757.69 ps. (Rupees thirty thousand seven hundred fifty seven and paise sixty-nine only) has been unlawfully recovered as and by way of cess on textiles. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8196 of 1988 contends that an amount of Rs. 2,70,989.11 ps. (Rupees two lakhs seventy thousand nine hundred eighty-nine and paise eleven only) has been unlawfully recovered in the same way as contended by the petitioner of Sp...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Varma, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmi Induction a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]216ITR555(Guj)
K.J. Vaidya, J. 1. Quite an important question that arises for consideration in the present group of 11 criminal revision applications is regarding the interpretation of the expression 'shall also be liable to fine equal to the amount of such loan or deposit' appearing in s. 276DD of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That since the fact-situation and the law governing all these criminal revision applications and the point raised for consideration are quite identical and common, but for some minor details here and there regarding names and addresses of the respondents, amounts of loans or deposits, and different Courts where the complaints came to be filed, etc., at the joint request and consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are heard and finally decided together by this common judgment. 3. In order to appreciate and interpret the said s. 276DD of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), in its true, correct perspective it is necessary first of all to have a loo...
Tag this Judgment!R. A. Varma, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmi Induction ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1994
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Guj)35
K. J. VAIDYA, J. :Quite an important question that arises for consideration in the present group of 11 criminal revision applications is regarding the interpretation of the expression 'shall also be liable to fine equal to the amount of such loan or deposit' appearing in s. 276DD of the IT Act, 1961.2. That since the fact-situation and the law governing all these criminal revision applications and the point raised for consideration are quite identical and common, but for some minor details here and there regarding names and addresses of the respondents, amounts of loans or deposits, and different Courts where the complaints came to be filed, etc., at the joint request and consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are heard and finally decided together by this common judgment.3. In order to appreciate and interpret the said s. 276DD of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), in its true, correct perspective it is necessary first of all to have a look a...
Tag this Judgment!Musa Mahammad Malek and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR845
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The petitioners, who are two amongst the original nine accused of Sessions Case No. 45 of 1993, are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that there are cross-cases the other being Criminal Case No. 44 of 1993 which is also pending before the Sessions Court, Baroda.2. It appears that Mr. M.H. Shah, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda framed charge against the accused in the said case on 25-1-1994. Said Shri Shah was thereafter transferred from Baroda to Surat and the learned Sessions Judge entrusted the said Sessions Cases to Shri S.S. Patel, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. An averment has been made in the petition that the said Shri Patel also decided application Ex. 35 on 4-7-1994 and directed the prosecution to produce certain evidence before the Court on or before 18-7-1994. The Investigating Agency has also partly complied with the said direction. However, the matter was...
Tag this Judgment!Chandbhai Mohmadbhai Sepai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1994
Reported in: (1996)3GLR574
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This revision application is filed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palitana on November 27,1991, in Summary Case No. 1218 of 1990 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, on December 24, 1992, in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1991. By the impugned orders, the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 66(1 )(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and was ordered to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 150/- in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 15 days more.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on February 26, 1990, at about 6 p.m. the petitioner, who was serving as police constable, was found drunk at a public place known as Bhairavpura Chowk in Palitana City. He was, therefore, arrested for committing offences punishable under Section 66(l)(b) read with Section 85(1 )(3) of the Act. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Matuben Sundarji Sejpal Vs. Anantbhai Tekchand
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR351
S.M. Soni, J.1. Order dated 6-1-1993 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 1988 below application at Ex.57 is under challenge in this revision application.2. Present applicant/plaintiff filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing an application for bringing heirs of deceased-defendant Tekchand Nithaldas. Deceased died on 4-8-1990 and plaintiff came to know of the same vide purshis filed by the defendant's Advocate on 6-9-1990. Plaintiff thereafter filed an application for bringing the heirs on record on 11-12-1990. As there appeared to be delay of about six days, an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiffs application is not in accordance with law and is not maintainable inasmuch as the plaintiff ought to have filed an application for setting aside the abatement a...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Natraj Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1381
C.V. Jani, J.1. In these ten identical petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hoteliers of Ahmedabad, have challenged the recovery of electricity charges by Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. respondent No. 2 in each of the petitions under various heads of fixed charges, fuel surcharge, and electricity duty.2. After the petitions were admitted, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners was elevated as a Judge of this High Court and so a personal notice to each of the petitioner was issued, but none of the petitioners has chosen to appear either personally or through any other Advocate at the time of final hearing. Thus, none of the petitioners appears to be interested in getting a decision of this Court on the various contentions raised by him. Special C.A. No. 1714 of 1984 was filed by Official Receiver of Messrs Kwality Restaurant and the notice returned back unserved with the remark 'the said Restaurant has been closed since long'. Similarly, a notice...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Chhotabhai Madhavbhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)1GLR407
S.D. Dave, J.1. In this group of 14 petitions which demonstrate common questions of law and facts, not much but every thing would depend upon the say of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) X GLR 992.2. The question which was presented before the Supreme Court for consideration and decision was in respect of the time lag, during which the powers under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 could be exercised. The pronouncement takes into consideration the date of granting of the orders for the non-agricultural use, namely July 02, 1960, along with the date of the setting aside of the orders of the Collector, namely, 12th October, 1961. The pronouncement also takes into consideration the fact that, there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211 of the Code. After pointing out this Statutory position, the pronouncement goes further to say that this power must be exercised within a reasonable time and the length of the reasonable tim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »