Guwahati Court June 1989 Judgments

Brajalal Banik Vs. State of Tripura and anr.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 26(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, for failure to pay penalty of Rs. 5,000 earlier levied by him under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The petitioner, a dealer carrying on business of execution of contract works under the name and style of Auto Engineering Works, Agartala, is registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), as well as under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By order dated September 2, 1980, the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner under Section 10A of the Central Act and directed him to pay the same by September 30, 1980. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred fur...

Studio Sen and Sen Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: [1990]79STC168(Gauhati)

B.P. Saraf, J.1. An important question of law has arisen for determination in this petition as to whether a dealer who purchased photographic materials and used the same in taking photographs and supplying prints thereof to his clients, which did not amount to sale, can be assessed to sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, on any supposed sale of the materials so used on the ground that the purchases were made at a concessional rate of tax on the strength of 'C' forms issued under the Central Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner is proprietor of a photo studio known as Studio Sen & Sen situated at Agartala. He carries on the business of buying and selling photographic goods and also buying photographic materials for use by him in taking photographs and supplying prints thereof to the customers or making enlargement of the photographs or making prints out of negatives supplied by his clients. A consolidated amount depending upon the work involved and the number of prints is charged...

Ramesh Sarma and anr. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S. Haque, J.1. The Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur took cognizance of the offence under Sections 7/17 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide order dt. 17-10-1979 against (1) Firm Shewnarayan Chhaganlal represented by (2) accused Chouthmal Bhati and accused Ramgopal Brahmin in C.R. Case No. 675 of 1979. After recording evidence partially the Court by its order dt. 18-1-1980 by virtue of power, under Section 20A impleaded (1) Assam State Cooperation Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd., Tezpur and (2) Shri Ramesh Sarma, Branch Manager as co-accused to face the prosecution. Again vide order dt. 11-3-1980, the Court by virtue of Section 20A impleaded Shri Gopal Das and Mohanlal being partners of M/s. Gopal Industries, Dharamshala Oil, Morena, Madhya Pradesh as co-assued to face the prosecution.2. Shri Ramesh Sarma, Branch Manager, A.S.C.M. & C.F. Ltd. has impugned the order dt. 18-1-1980 of the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur in Criminal Revision No. 3...

Subahu Kumar JaIn Vs. Jagdish Prasad Choudhury and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the judgment and order dated 14-7-88 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Bar-peta in Misc. Case No. 51/87 and Title Suit No. 21/87 rejecting the petition for addition of the petitioner as a defendant and for setting aside the ex parte decree. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows :-- The opposite parties 1 and 2 Jagdish Choudhury and Smt. Rukmini Choudhury filed a suit against the opposite party 3 Shri Vikram Chand Daga who is the father of thepresent petitioner for eviction from the suit premises. The suit was disposed of on 30-10-87 by an ex parte decree. The opposite party 3, Shri Vikram Chand Daga was the defendant in the said suit who filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. In course of hearing of the aforesaid petition, after the recording of the evidence of the parties at the argument stage, a petition...