Guwahati Court August 1990 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.
Sen Bricks Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of bricks under the name and style of 'Sen Bricks' subsequently renamed as 'Sen Brothers'. It is a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter 'the Act'). During the period April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981, the petitioner supplied bricks to the Public Works Department in pursuance of contract agreement entered into between them. On consideration of the terms of the contract these supplies were held by the sales tax authorities to be sales exigible to tax under the Act on the ground that supply of bricks was a distinct item in the contract. The petitioner has challenged this finding in this writ petition.2. Mr. A.M. Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the following two common questions arise for consideration in this writ petition. First, that the supply of bricks did not amount to sale--it was works contract. Secondly, if it is held to be sale, ...
Shew Chander Mathu and anr. Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
J.M. Srivastava, J.1. The petitioners were prosecuted on charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereafter 'Act', on the allegations that on 28-6-80, the Food Inspector, hereafter referred as the 'Inspector', had visited the Madhu Milon Hotel and Restaurant of which the petitioner No. 2 was the proprietor and the petitioner No. 1, the attendant-in-charge. The Inspector had taken sample of 'suzi-ladu' which on analysis was found to contain prohibited coal-tar-dye 'metanil yellow.' The prosecution had examined three witnesses and the defence had examined two witnesses. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by judgment and order dated 6-10-82 convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to six months' R.I. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat by judgment and order dated 17-1-84 with the modification that fine amount was reduced to Rs. 1000/-.2. Aggrieved, th...
The State of Assam Vs. Rakesh Chandra Paul
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Srivastava, J.1. This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-5-82 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereafter referred as the 'Act'.2. The prosecution case was that oh 30-5-81 when the Food Inspector, hereafter referred as the 'Inspector' inspected the shop premises of Rakesh Paul, the respondent, in Sariqauri Bazar, he had found kesari dal exposed in his shop, and after disclosure of his identity had obtained sample of kesari dal for analysis. The samples of Arhar Dal, and mustard oil had also been taken and sent for chemical analysis. Arhar Dal and Mustard oil were in order. The possession and exposure of kesari dal had been prohibited by notification dated 10th March, 1966 under Rule 44A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereafter referred as the 'Rules' and so was an offence under...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nabadwip Chandra Dey
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The following question of law has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing a set off of Rs. 15,000 on account of intangible additions made in the earlier years against unexplained cash deposit and investment treated as the assessee's income from other sources relating to the assessment year 1961-62?'2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid question of law may be briefly stated thus: The assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1961-62. The assessment of the assessee for the aforesaid year was reopened by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinaf...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajmohan Saha and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the following question of law has been referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm should have been granted registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, without a fresh deed of partnership embodying the new constitution of the firm ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. It was constituted by a deed of partnership dated May 1, 1972. It comprised three partners, namely, Rajmohan Saha, Akhil Chandra Saha and Meghanand Saha. The firm, as evidenced by the said partnership deed, was registered by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Tripura Circle, Agartala, under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1973-74. The bene...
Sudhir Sarkar Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Srivastava, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-2-1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case briefly was that one Ranjit Sarkar on his death had left some land and appellant Sudhir, his brother Narayan and sister Arati from his first wife, and three daughters and one son from his second wife Bijali Sarkar who was in possession of the land. The appellant and his brother Narayan were engaged as labour by Chinta Haran informant and his brother. On 21-8-1983 Bijali Sarkar had gone for work, leaving at the house her daughter Jhunu, 5 years old and son Ranjit three years old. The appellant had committed murder of said two children by throttling. Bijali on return from work had seek the appellant going out and found the children dead, raised alarm and people came including Chinta Haran Sarkar who later lodged the...
Assam Oil Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Taxes
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
J.M. Srivastava, J.1. The five above-noted references by the Assam Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), under Section 32(4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assam Act'), read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which raise the same three questions, were heard together and the questions referred are being answered by this common judgment.2. The questions are : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Sections 2(g), 3 and 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in holding that the despatches in question made by the assessee to the three oil companies amounted to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act ?(2) Whether the conclusion of the Board of Revenue holding the transactions to be 'sale' is vitiated in law by reason of improper rejection and/or non-consid...
Metal Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The reference in this case arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee-firm, in its return for 1974-75, disclosed an income of Rs. 26,000. The Income-tax Officer, in his order, enhanced the income to Rs. 1,40,860 in that Rs. 1,14,860 was determined to be income from other sources. Further, the following outstandings of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Kashi Prasad Sah, Rs. 40,000 in the name of Mohanlal Jaichandlal, Rs. 14,000 in name of Tikomchand Jain and Rs. 40,000 in the name of Punamchand Ratanlal, Rs. 60,000 in the name of the firm, Assam Metals, Rs. 1,24,000 in the name of Assam Tubes, are not true and, therefore, levied a 'protective penalty' of Rs. 1,14,000. The asses-see thereupon unsuccessfully filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal. Finally, at the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was just...
Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs. Mustt. Samsun Nehar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
J.N. Srivastava, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-8-89 and 1-9-89 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara in a maintenance matter.2. Briefly, the opposite party wife of the petitioner had claimed maintenance from the petitioner which was allowed by order 23-8-1984. After the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 hereinafter referred as the 'Act', had come into force the petitioner moved an application dated 1-8-87 with the prayer that after the Act had come into force, he was no longer liable to pay maintenance. It: appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate oh the said application, by order dated 3-9-87 held that the petitioner was no longer liable to pay maintenance. The present opposite party went in revision and the learned Sessions Judge by order 23-4-88 remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate for enquiry into certain matters like payment of dower money, return of presents and payment of maintena...
Md. JainulabdIn Alias Nahamacha and Etc. Vs. State of Manipur and Etc.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
1. These three appeals viz. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 1 of 1990, Govt. Criminal Appeals Nos. 4 & 5 of 1990 were heard together as the points involved are the same. By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of the above three appeals.2. Facts of Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 1 of 1990 :-- On 14-2-86 the Superintendent of Police, Boarder Affairs (P.W. 4) along with the Sub-Inspector of Police of the department (P.W. 5) were at Moreh for checking and handling of drug traffickers. They did so on getting reliable information. The party included also constable P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, an Official of Narcotic Section of Manipur Police Department and on way they came accross with the accused Jainulabdin @ Nahamacha in a suspicious manner and after getting down from their vehicle the body of the accused was searched by P.W. 5, the Sub-Inspector of Police. A plastic packet suspected to be No. 4 heroin powder was found and on measurement by P.W. 3, a local Goldsmith, the weight was found t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »