Guwahati Court September 2009 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.
Freight Carriers and ors. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)26VST233(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Apart from the fact that all these three writ petitions, involving identical facts, have been filed by the same petitioner, these writ petitions, as would transpire, are inextricably linked with each other and have raised common questions of law for determination Hence, all these writ petitions have been heard on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The prominent questions, which this set of writ petitions has raised, are : (i) When the 'transporters' as a class, do not fall within the definition of the term 'dealer', in a given fiscal statute, whether it is constitutionally permissible to impose legal obligations on the functioning of the 'transporters' so as to ensure that the acts or omissions of transporters' do not help evasion of tax by 'dealers'? (ii) Whether contravention of such statutory obligations, imposed on the 'transporters' can be made offences? (iii) Whether...
Zenith Services and anr. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST37(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is in the business of carrying goods of different 'dealers', who have been carrying on business, at Agartala and at other places, in the State of Tripura. The persons, who fall within the definition of a 'dealer', as given in the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (in short, 'the TST Act'), are required to get themselves registered, in terms of the TST Act, with the Superintendent of Taxes within whose jurisdiction such a 'dealer' may be carrying on his business. For the purpose of import of goods from outside the State, the 'dealers' are required to be registered under the TST Act and their registration enables the authorities, under the TST Act, to assess and collect taxes from the 'dealers' for the goods imported by them into the State of Tripura. Rule 64A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (in short, 'the TST Rules') casts obli1 gation on the 'transporters', 'carriers' and 'transporting agents', who carry/transport taxable goods, ...
Mes Builders Association of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST140(Gauhati)
T. Vaiphei, J.1. The legislative competence of the State of Meghalaya to enact Section 106 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the Act', for short) is called into question by thirteen petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions. As they involve identical questions of law and facts, they were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.2. To comprehend and decide the controversy in these writ petitions, we will first refer to the facts in W.P. (C) No. 48(SH) of 2007 and then apply our decision to the remaining cases. The petitioner is a society under the name and style of 'MES Builders' Association' registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with one of its branches located at Shillong, and has a membership of 40 builders/contractors. The members of this society are undertaking construction works on behalf of Garrison Engineer under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and are registered dealers with the sales tax authority of the S...
R.S. Sodhi and anr. and Vs. Partha Pratim Saikia
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-03-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas583(Gauhati)
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both these criminal petitions inasmuch as both these petitions have arisen out of the same order, which stands impugned in these criminal petitions, and both have been, on the request made by learned Counsel for the parties, heard together.2. By making these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioners have sought for setting aside and quashing the order, dated May 30, 2007, whereby cognisance of offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B/34 of the IPC has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, and summons have accordingly been directed to be issued against the present petitioners as accused.3. I have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party. I hav...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›