Gujarat Court July 2008 Judgments
AshwIn Chaturbhai Parmar and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4764; (2009)1GLR371
ORDEROn behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that as the petitioners intend to approach the Apex Court, the order passed by this Court today as well as the trial before the concerned Trial Judge may be stayed.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently objected to the request for stay of the trial and stated that, as no stay was granted even during the pendency of the Revision Applications, there is no question of either granting stay of the order or the trial now.Considering the entirety of the case and the fact that the trial was not stayed even during the pendency of Revision Applications, I find much force in the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and I am of the considered opinion that stay, as prayed for, cannot be granted. Hence, the prayer for stay is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Natvarsinh Jhalasinh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4074
Z.K. Saiyed, J.1. The Appellant-State of Gujarat has filed Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2000 and the appellant-original accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2000. Both the appellants (the State of Gujarat as well as original accused) in above Criminal Appeals have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No. 200 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals at Godhra. In Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2000 the State has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.2000 rendered in Sessions Case No. 200 of 1999. In Criminal Appeal the appellant-accused has challenged the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 200 of 1999 vide Judgment and order dated 2.6.2000. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment and order as well as documentary evidence being same, both these appeals are heard and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The facts of the prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Cosmonaut Chemicals and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(233)ELT46(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions are taken up for hearing together as the issue involved is common, though on facts there is slight variation, which however, would not make any material difference.2. Special Civil Application No. 12862 of 2004 has been heard as the lead matter and accordingly detailed facts as narrated are taken from the said petition.3. The petitioner, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting chemicals manufactured. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27.05.2001 five consignments of manufactured goods were exported. In terms of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively, the petitioner preferred rebate claims. Such rebate claims had to be accompanied by an export promotion copy of the shipping bill duly endorsed by the Customs authorities evidencing proof of export. The said claims were filed on 29.07.2002 and 16.08.2002. On 30.09.2002 the petitioner was serv...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Iii Vs. R.K. Construction Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)415; [2009]313ITR65(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2001/ 02 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for the determination and consideration of this Court:A. Whether the ITAT was right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,37,61,817/- which was enhanced from Rs. 30,66,860/- by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of erroneous order passed by the AO ?B. Whether the ITAT was right in law and on facts in holding that the order passed by the CIT is beyond the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and further holding that the order is also not correct on merits ?C. Whether the ITAT was right in law and on facts in holding that the word 'record' used in Section 263(1) of the Act would not mean the record as it stands at the time of examination by the Commissioner, but it means the record as it stands at the time the order in question was passed by the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Special Prints Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOi) thro' Secretary and Anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(238)ELT738(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. This petition challenges the orders dated 14/26th September, 2007 and 18th December, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal). The substantial relief claimed in the petition is as follows:[A] Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Tribunal's orders dated 14/26.9.2007 and 18.12.2007 at Annexure G and Annexure L respectively and be further pleased to direct the Tribunal to hear the petitioner's appeal without insisting upon a pre-deposit.2. The respondents had issued a show cause notice against the petitioner and Garden Silk alleging that they were related persons and that the petitioner had processed 10,24,92,878 L.Mt. of fabric for Garden Silk on job work basis during 1993-98, hence the petitioner should have paid duty in terms of the wholes...
Tag this Judgment!Navpad Textile Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(234)ELT394(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantial relief:[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 at Annexure-D passed by the CESTAT, Ahmedabad.2. The petitioner company is a registered export oriented unit and is engaged in the manufacture of Dyed Polyester Filament Yarn. Pursuant to search carried out by the officers of the respondents, show cause notice came to be issued by the respondent No. 2 invoking larger period of limitation and seeking to recover Central Excise duty of Rs. 91,99,802/- under Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) as also the interest and penalty thereon. The respondent No. 2 confirmed the demand of Rs. 91,99,802/- under Section 11(A)(2) of the Act and imposed penalty of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Excel Crop Care Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Guj)59; 2008[12]STR436; [2009]20STT164
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant- Revenue has proposed the following question:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in permitting input credit on mobile services following the decision in the case of Indian Rayon Industries Limited reported in 2006 [4] STR 79 [Tri.]?2. The respondent - assessee availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on mobile phone services in respect of mobile phones used by employees and officers of respondent assessee. The dispute relates to the period from March 2005 to September 2005 involving an amount of Rs. 56,188/-. According to the appellant, the assessee was not entitled to the credit on the ground that mobile phones are not phones installed in the factory premises and therefore, cannot be treated as 'input service' in terms of Circular No. 59/8/2003 dated 20.6.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The contention of the assessee that the said circular was issued in context of Service Tax Credit Rules, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Hussainbhai J. Saiyed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ43Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') has challenged award dated May 13, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in reference (IT) No. 72/1999. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the reviewing authority and confirmed/restored the order passed by the disciplinary authority.2. Aggrieved by the said award of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner-corporation has preferred this petition. The facts involved in this case are; after conclusion of departmental inquiry against the respondent the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with permanent effect and subsequently, the matter was taken up for review in accordance with the applicable rules. The reviewing authority, being of the opinion that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was inadequate as against the nature and gravity of the misconduct, imposed...
Tag this Judgment!Vimlaben Motiram Vs. State of Guj.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4280; (2009)1GLR261
Z.K. Saiyed, J.1. The present Appellant/original accused in Sessions Case No. 145 of 1992 was charged and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').2. The facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant deceased Lilaben, wife of Ramchand Shravan, was staying with her husband and four children since last 8 to 10 years from the date of incident. On the date of incident i.e. on 21.6.1992 when she was, along with her two daughters, at home the wife of Motiramani and the wife of Madawala Ghanshyam, who were neighbours of the deceased/complainant, called the complainant - deceased as witch ('Dakan'). Thereupon the complainant told them as to why they are telling her as 'Witch' and thereupon hot discussion took place between them. Thereafter, wife of Motiramani, present appellant/accused poured the kerosene on the complainant and was set ablaze her. The complainant fell down on the earth ...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Coromandal Investment Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Guj)313; [2009]316ITR104(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1986-87 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law.(A) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that change in the method of accounting from mercantile to cash basis was bonafide and thereby deleting the addition made on account of interest chargeable ?(B) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted ?2. This Court has admitted Appeal on 6.9.2000 on the following substantial question of law.Whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the change in the method of accounting made by the present assessee, a subsidiary of the holding company with whom deposits were placed, from mercantile to cash basis was bona fide and deletion of the addition made on ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »