Gujarat Court June 1994 Judgments
Atmaram J. Hathiwala Vs. S. Sarup, Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)332; [1994]209ITR456(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. This petition is filed against the order dt. 30th Dec., 1985 (Annexure `F') passed by the CIT, Surat under s. 264 of the IT Act ('the Act' for short) rejecting the petitioner's refund applications against the ITO's refusal in granting interest under s. 244(1A) of the Act on the amount of penalty, which is waived under s. 273A of the Act. 2. By the order dt. 25th Aug., 1982, the CIT waived the penalty imposed under ss. 271(1)(a), 273(a) and 273(c) of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application before the ITO, Surat, praying that the amount as remitted by the CIT be refunded with interest under s. 244(1A) r/w r. 119(A). It was also prayed that the interest amount which the petitioner has paid on some delayed payments be also refunded with interest. The ITO refunded the amount without paying any interest as provided under s. 244(1A) of the Act. The petitioner therefore preferred revision applications u...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Textile Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1724
R. Balia, J.1. All the four petitions are by the Gujarat State Textile Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) in respect of different textile units taken over and vested in the Corporation uer the Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (Act No. 10 of 1986) or the Gujarat Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (Act No. 25 of 1986). The sole question raised in these petitions is that whether the Collector of Central Excise could direct recovery of excise duty due from the erstwhile textile units for the period before the same were vested in the Corporation. As common question of law has arisen in all the four matters, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Brief facts which are necessary and relevant for the purpose may be stated in respect of each one of the petitions:Special Civil Application No. 3237 of 1986:This petition relates to excise duty recoverable from M/s. Ahmedabad Cotton Manufacturing Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Bus Transport and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1371
C.K. Thakker, J.1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent authorities of detaining and seizing Motor vehicles under Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Act') and under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act') inspite of their having All India Permits as contract carriages simply on the ground that the vehicles were not used as contract carriages. Common questions of fact and law have been raised in all petitions and it is, therefore, appropriate to decide them by a common judgment. For appreciating the controversy in question, few relevant facts of the petition first in point of time, i.e., Special Civil Application No. 2866 of 1989 may now be stated.2. That petition is filed by Ramkrishna Bus Transport and others for appropriate writ, direction and/or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents, their servants and ...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT34(Guj); (1995)1GLR461
Rajesh Balia, J.1. All these eight petitions raise common questions and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the petitioners are importing Polyester Filament Yarn. The yarn is wounded on bobbins which are made either of iron or aluminium or paper. The yarn so imported is subject to levy of duty of customs under the Customs Act. The articles made of iron or aluminium or paper are also subject to duty of customs under separate items prescribed in the Schedule at different rates when imported. The precise question which is raised in these petitions is that when Polyester Filament Yarn is imported wounded on bobbins, whether customs duty is leviable on the entire invoice price or be subjected to levy of customs duty under respective tariff items by dividing the invoice value of goods according to net value of yarn and bobbins independently. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that bobbins are of durable character and can be refused or returned. Theref...
Tag this Judgment!Shrirang Touring Talkies and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj123; (1995)1GLR171
S. Chatterji, J. 1. By order dated 18th November, 1986 passed by this Court (Coram: P. A. Gokulakrishnan, C. J. and C. T. Nanavati, J.) Rule was issued in both the aforesaid matters on 18-11-1986. However, no stay as regards the orders impugned in the aforesaid petitions was granted and the petitioners were given two months' time to pay up the amount decided by the authorities as per Annexures A, B and C to the respective petition.2. Having heard Mr. S. R. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K. T. Dave, Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondents in depth and detail and upon perusal of the material on record, we fail to appreciate as to how the petitioners should be insisted upon for making the payment of the entertainment tax for the period/periods, they were prohibited from running the show. The word 'entertainment' has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and provides that 'entertainment' inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmiben Hemdas Patel Vs. S.B. Rohtagi, Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: [1994]209ITR267(Guj)
1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated February 9, 1983, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat III, Ahmedabad, under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income-tax arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to interest under section 244(1A) of the Act because she got a refund as a result of an order passed under section 154 of the Act and that the order passed under section 154 of the Act would not be covered by the phrase 'other proceedings' contemplated under section 240 of the Act. 2. It is the say of the petitioner that consequent to the orders under section 154 of the Act, a refund of Rs. 11.376 became due to the petitioner for the assessment year 1975-76 and for the assessment year 1977-78 the petitioner got a refund amount of Rs. 2,452. Both these refunds were ordered to be adjusted against the outstanding demand of assessment year 1974-75. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Silk Weaving Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Guj)157; [1995]213ITR10(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. For the assessment year 1968-69, the petitioner submitted a return of income of Rs. 3,83,300 on October 17, 1968. Before the assessment proceedings started, the petitioner made an application dated March 29, 1971, for settlement to the Commissioner, disclosing voluntarily an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 being profit on sale of import licences and on the next day, i.e., on March 30, 1971, filed a revised return including the above voluntarily disclosed income. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that the import licence was sold for Rs. 3,00,000 and he estimated the profit on sale of yarn and made additions in profit and investment said to have been made in the disposal of import licences. He estimated the income at Rs. 11,14,179. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the said amount to Rs. 7 21,438. The order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. Thereafter, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed an order da...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswantsinh Laxmansinh Chauhan and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1683
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge validity of Section 65 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and also the decision taken by the respondent-Municipality to let out some terraces on Municipal building to a group of 24 lawyers.2. The petitioners themselves are a class of persons who are stated to be interested in seeing that the Municipality acts in accordance with law and they are also interested in the space on the terraces of building known as 'Khushboo Shopping Centre' in Deesa town. Coming first to the validity of Section 65 of The Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, the same reads as follows:65. (1) A Municipality shall be competent, subject to the restriction contained in sub-see. (2), to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which may, for the purposes of this Act, have become vested in or been acquired by it: and so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of this Act, to enter into and perform a...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Clay Industries Vs. Union of India (Uio) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1758
B.N. Kirpal, C.J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the vires of Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, inter alia, on the ground that the same is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is also beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament.2. Section 9 of the said Act empowers levy of royalty in respect of mining lease at the rate to be specified, from time to time, in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. Prior to 1972, proviso to Sub-section (1) stipulated that the Central Government shall not fix the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral so as to exceed 20% of the sale price of the mineral at the pit's head. By virtue of amendment made in the said Act in the year 1972, the said proviso (a) was deleted. After 1972, Section 9 as it now stands, is as follows:9. (1) The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of...
Tag this Judgment!The Project Manager, Ahmedabad Project, O.N.G.C. Vs. Sham Kumar Sehgal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR176]; (1995)1GLR116; (1995)ILLJ863Guj
Panchal, J. 1. By means of this petition which is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated April 23, 1980 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Central), Ahmedabad in Recovery Application (LCA) No. 197 of 1979 direction the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,448.78 ps. to deceased Sham kumar Sehgal and issuing necessary certificate for recovery of the said amount. Deceased Sham Kumar Sehgal was employed as an Assistant Grade (I) (R) with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC for short). It was the case of the ONGC that, while functioning as Junior Assistant, Technical and Purchase Section, ONGC, Cambay, late Mr. Sham Kumar Sehgal committed misconduct. The ONGC, therefore, initiated disciplinary action against him under Regulation 25 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »