Guwahati Court July 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Murarilal Sovasaria
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The origin of the instant proceedings is in the opinion or order of this court passed on August 11, 1988, in Estate Duty Reference No. 1 of 1976 . As the reference was disposed of by that order, we call the instant proceedings as a supplemental order. 2. In Reference No. 1 of 1976, two questions were referred to the court The instant proceedings related to the second question which pertained to the share of the goodwill of a partner of a dissolved firm, Ram Kumar Sovasaria. The goodwill was ascertained as Rs. 9,450 by the Revenue. The second question was whether Rs. 9,450 formed part of the estate of the deceased, Ram Kumar Sovasaria, in proceedings under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. That question was answered in favour of the accountable person on August 11, 1988. The decision is reported in (CED v, Murarilal Sovasaria). There was a clerical error in one of the sentences of the order. The relevant sentence reads as follows (at p. 421) : 'We are in agreement with ...
Purbanchal Bricks Industries Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
B.P. Saraf, J.1. In this batch of petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 26A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, on the ground of violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. As the facts of all the cases are identical, the facts of one of the cases, namely, Civil Rule No. 48 of 1984 are set out below.The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 48 of 1984, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks, etc., and is registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter 'the Act'. The petitioner was assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Dharmanagar, under Section 9(4) of the Act for the period ending 1982-83 and a sum of Rs. 19,687.50 was determined as the amount due on account of tax and interest after allowing deduction for the amount of Rs. 5,000 paid by the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of assessment, a notice of demand was issued directing the petitioner to pa...
Rajendra Singh Vs. Superintendent of Taxes and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
B.P. Saraf, J.1. These eight writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and as such they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The main question for determination in these cases relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Commissioner to exercise suo motu power of revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The facts of these cases lie in a narrow compass. To avoid repetition, facts of Civil Rule No. 182 of 1982 only are being stated.3. The petitioner, who is a dealer carrying on business of manufacture, sale and supply of bricks, etc., was assessed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, under Section 9(3) of the Act after examining his books of account, etc. The periods involved were periods ending March 31, 1977, March 31, 1978 and March 31, 1979. While making the assessments the Superintendent of Taxes considered the sale figure of taxable and non-...
Moheema Ltd. (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The question involved in this writ petition relates to the payment of interest by the Government under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter 'the Act.' Under that provision of law, interest is payable by the Government at the stipulated rate on the amount by which the aggregate sum of any instalments of advance tax paid during any financial year in which they are payable under Sections 207 to 213 exceeds the amount of tax determined on regular assessment. The question for decision is if the advance tax had not been paid on the dates specified for this purpose but had been paid during the entire financial year, whether on the excess amount interest would be payable by the Government A similar question, of course, relatable to Section 215 of the Act, dealing with interest payable by the assessee, was examined by this court is Sookerating Tea Co. (P.) Ltd, v. CIT and it was held that the payment made within the financial year after the due dates shoul...
Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati and anr. Vs. Gauhati Transport A ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
Manisana, J. 1. In this writ application, the Regional State Transport Authority Gauhati and its Secretary have challenged an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Assam at Gauhati made an 5-2-1982 in Appeal No. 49 of 1981 quashing the 'additional permit conditions' in respect of the State Carriage permits imposed by the Regional Transport Authority. 2. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority Gauhati is as follows : 'The Regional Transport Authority on its meeting held on 28-1-81, decided to impose some additional permit conditions under Sections 48 and 51 of M. V. Act, 1939 (as amended up to date) in the interest of public service and it will be effective from the date of issue of this letter. i) The vechicle shall not be withdrawn from operation without prior permission of the Chairman of the R.T.A. ii) to v) xxx xxx xxx xxx' It may be noted that we are required to consider condition-I only. 3. The Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Section 64-A ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goslino Mario and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-18-1989
B.L. Hansaria, J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred to this court under the provisions of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire amount of salaries and allowances paid by the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. to Montecatini Edison (now Technimont) of Italy for services rendered by the assessee-foreign technician deputed to the FCI Ltd. by the Italian concern in terms of the agreement between the FCI Ltd. and the Italian concern was assessable in the hands of the foreign technician in terms of Section 15, read with Sections 5 and 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessee was assessable to tax in India as per the certificate of salary issued by the Italian concern ?3. Whether, on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal w...
Ganakanta Das and ors. Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-17-1989
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. I had the advantage of going through with profit of the judgment and order of my learned brother Y. I. Singh, J. and I agree that the present appeal has merit and the impugned order of conviction and sentence has to be set aside. However, with respect I am unable to agree that the contradictions of the statements of the witnesses before the investigating officer and in the witness box has to be discarded in view of the reasons given in para 12 of the main judgment. I record my reasons for the above disagreement as follows : --2. My learned brother in discarding the above contradictions has placed reliance in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 and Pangi Jogi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1965 Ori 205.3. In Tahsildar (supra) the Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 162, Cr. P. C. as it stood prior to the amendment of 1955. In the last sub-para of para 10 of the report the Apex Court stated the reasons for not considering the amended Section 162 b...
Arun Bhusan Chakravarty and ors. Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-10-1989
B.P. Saraf, J.1. These two Revision Petitions arise out of a common judgment and order and are as such taken up together. The petitioners in both the cases, namely, 1. Arun Bhusan Chakravarty, 2. Zamatullah and 3. Usman Ali were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gauhati under Section 399, I.P.C. and sentenced to R/I for five years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default R/I for three months. An appeal was filed by the petitioners against the said order of conviction before the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. The learned Sessions Judge fixed the appeal for hearing on 11-11-80 and issued notice to the parties. On 11-11-80 hearing could not take place on as the Court could not function on that day due to Non-Co-operation Movement. On 12-11-80 the learned Sessions Judge fixed 6-1-81 for hearing. On 6-1-81 the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal, without fixing a date.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on receipt of the case...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›