Gujarat Court August 2005 Judgments

Alembic Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2006(193)ELT282(Guj)

D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. Uday Joshi for Trivedi & Gupta, Id. Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Malkan appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4. The dispute between the parties is confined to a limited issue and hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner, manufacturer of Drugs claimed exemption qua Roxythromycin cleared during September, 1996 to December, 1996 and Nimesulide cleared during September, 1996 to December, 1997 vide Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) vide its order dated 11-3-2005 (Annexure-A) held that the petitioner was entitled to exemption qua Nimesulide but rejected the petitioner's claim in so far as Roxythromycin is concerned. The petitioner moved an application seeking rectification of mistake and by order dated 20-5-2005 the applica...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Lt ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2006(193)ELT136(Guj)

ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. The Appellant Revenue has proposed the following two questions :11.1 Whether the Tribunal has been right in allowing the appeal and holding that since steam was admittedly manufactured and used within the plant, Mod vat credit could not have been denied? 11.2 Whether the Tribunal has been right in applying the provisions of Rule 57B, when Rule 57B was not in existence during the material period November, 2000 to June, 2001? 2. The respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacture of fertilizers and chemicals. It purchased Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) which is already duty paid and used the same as feed/fuel in the manufacture of fertilizers and generation of steam. The steam so generated is utilised for the manufacture of fertilizers, chemicals as well as generation of electricity in captive power plant. According to Revenue, the assessee is not entitled to credit of duty paid on that part of input which had been used in the production of electricity supplied outsid...

Valji Khimji and Company Vs. O.L. of Hindustan Nitroproduct (Gujarat) ...

Court: Gujarat

Ranjit Singh, J.1. All efforts made at reconciliation between this well educated and well placed estranged couple having failed, we explored the possibility of seeing an amicable settlement and permanent parting between them. We regret to note that we even could not succeed in these efforts. The case having been heard at length was put up for rehearing when a statement was made on behalf of the respondent husband that he was willing to pay Rs. 10 lacs to the appellant-wife and his child, which was turned down by her. At some stage of these proceedings, the appellant wife seemed willing to end this relationship in case some proper arrangements were made for the child.2. We recollect that her demand was in the range of the present offer, which the respondent-husband had then expressed his inability to meet. This well educated couple, who are well placed in their respective fields, has continued to litigate this matrimonial dispute almost soon after their marriage. We have not been able t...

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. G.i. Rathwa

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR628]

M.R. Shah, J.1. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent workman and the matter was adjourned time and again. Under the circumstances, this Court has no other alternative but to decide and dispose of the present Special Civil Application on merits, ex-parte.2. In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 8.12.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in Reference (IT) No. 120/2000 by which the Industrial Tribunal has partly allowed the said Reference by substituting the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority dated 26.2.1999 by imposing the punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with permanent effect. 3. The respondent workman was serving as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him by issuing chargesheet alleging inter alia that while he...

Madhubhai Gandabhai Patel Vs. Joitaram Jividas Patel and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: IV(2006)BC478

Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Ahuja for the original complainant as well as Mr. Gohil, Ld. APP for the State waive notice of rule. The matter is finally heard today.2. As common questions arise in these petitions, both the petitions are being considered simultaneously.3. The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the order passed by the Ld. Magistrate and its confirmation thereof by the Ld. Sessions Judge whereby the application of the petitioner for examining the handwriting expert as witness of the petitioner is rejected and the same is confirmed by the Ld. Sessions Judge in the revisional proceedings.4. Heard Mr. Baqui for the petitioner, Mr. Gohil, Ld. APP for the State and Mr. Ahuja for the respondent No. 1- original complainant.5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the evidence of the complainant was over at the stage of recording of FS, the application was made for forwarding cheque to the handwriting expert because the defense of the peti...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chaltan Vibhag Udyog Khand Sahakari Man ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)86; [2006]282ITR385(Guj)

D.A. Mehta, J.1. Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT, Surat : 'Whether in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that when judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court was there before passing the assessment order, and despite, AO had made assessment without following the Supreme Court judgment and later took an action under Section 154, the action is change of opinion and is not correction of mistake apparent from record and cannot be rectified by way of an action under Section 154 ?2. The assessment year is 1975-76 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30th June, 1974. The AO framed an assessment order on 3rd Aug., 1979 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act. He worked out the total income at Rs. nil. While granting deduction under Section 80P, he allowed deduction under Section 80J, development rebate and then after gran...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat State Export Corporation

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)217; [2006]280ITR62(Guj)

D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following common question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT in all the three references. Therefore, all the three references have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that HPS groundnuts exported by the assessee did not come within the ambit of expression 'agricultural primary commodities' in Section 80HHC(2)(b)(i) of the IT Act, 1961, and that deduction under Section 80HHC(1) of the Act was allowable ?'2. It is an accepted position between the parties that the lead matter is IT Ref. No. 113 of 1994 and hence, the facts necessary for the determination of the question are taken from the said reference.3. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant accounting period is 31st Dec., 1982. The assessee, a State Govern...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Bhojraj Makkad and anr.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2006)2GLR921

B.J. Shethna, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue writ or any other type of writ or order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Judgment and order dated 28.2.2003 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (for short SCAT) in Review Application No. 10 of 2003 and to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and order dated 28.3.2002 passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 180 of 1996.Initially, this petition was placed for admission before the Division Bench of this Court (B.J. Shethna & A.H. Mehta, JJ.). Speaking for the Bench, one of us (B.J. Shethna, J.) dismissed the same by order dated 24.6.2003. It is a brief order which we would like to reproduce hereunder :Heard learned Counsel Shri Nagarkar for the petitioner. Apart from the fact that almost identical petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8405 of 2003 was dismissed only yesterday, 23.6.2003, it clearly appears that after Review Application No. 10 of 2003 filed in O.A. No. 1...

Cit Vs. Gujarat State Export Corpn.

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2006]150TAXMAN560(Guj)

D.A. Mehta, J.The following common question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), at the instance of the CIT in all the three references. Therefore, all the three references have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that HPS groundnuts exported by the assessee did not come within the ambit of expression 'agricultural primary commodities' in section 80HHC(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that deduction under section 80HHC(1) of the Act was allowable ?'2. It is an accepted position between the parties that the lead matter is Income Tax Reference No. 113 of 1994 and hence, the facts necessary for the determination of the question are taken from the said reference.3. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant accounting per...

Chanasma Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2006)1GLR874

K.M. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Learned AGP waives rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Advocate waives Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 5. 1. Chanasma Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16/6/2005, passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat in Appeal/Application No. 60 of 2005.2. Heard Mr. Harin Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Mr. M.A. Patel, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. The facts giving rise are as under: 3.1 The petitioner is a registered cooperative society duly registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.3.2 It is the case of the petitioner ...