Himachal Pradesh Court December 1977 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.
Himachal Conductors Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Deputy Excise and Ta ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1977
Reported in: [1978]42STC440(HP)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioners herein are liable to pay Central sales tax on the turnover of their inter-State trade for the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in view of the fact that the goods in question have been exempted from the State's sales tax by virtue of the Incentive Rules framed by the Government on 12th April, 1971 and the subsequent notification issued on 27th May, 1974, by the State Government under Section 42 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968.2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company which has established an industry at Saproon in Solan District of the State for manufacturing electric goods. On 12th April, 1971, the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification by virtue of which several rules were framed 'regarding grant of incentives to new and already established industries in the Pradesh'. According t...
State Vs. Bhim Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1041
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This contempt petition arises out of the report sent to this Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulu against the respondent who happens to be Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing before the learned Magistrate. The facts relevant to this reference are that police investigated an offence under Section 436 I.P.C. in State v. Khubu and ultimately submitted a report which is known as 'cancellation report'. The learned Magistrate perused the case papers and came to the conclusion that there was enough evidence against the accused for the offence in question. She, therefore, took cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. According to the learned Magistrate, she could take cognizance of the matter in spite of the 'cancellation report' under Clause (b) of Section 190(1) of the Code, She thereafter asked the respondent to furnish a copy of the challan to the accused. The respondent, however, did not supply the said challan and informed the court that as t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›