Kolkata Court June 2004 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.
The Indian Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT401(HC),(2005)198CTR(Cal)360,[2005]272ITR439(Cal)
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, an assessee under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 has challenged four notices, two dated 11th February, 1983 and the other two dated 29th March 1983, all issued under Section 148 of the said Act.2. Initially, the first two notices dated 11th February 1983 under Section 148 of the Act were issued for the assessment year 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 respectively, on the ground that the Income Tax Officer concerned had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner for the aforesaid periods escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. In the last paragraph of those two notices, although it was written that those notices were being issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax/Central Board of Revenue but thereafter the said paragraph was deleted.3. There is no dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 1lth February 1983, the petitioner had filed returns for those tw...
Saturday Club Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr., Service Tax Cell
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT575(HC),2005(180)ELT437(Cal),2006[3]STR305
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This writ petition has been made by the Saturday Club Limited, a well-known club of the city of Calcutta (Kolkata) by the pen of the then Secretary and authorised representative of the same. Such writ petition was filed in the year, 1998 praying inter alia declaration that the petitioner club is not a mandap keeper within the meaning of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 1997 and is not liable to pay any service tax under the Act along with various writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari with the incidental prayers virtually to restrain the authorities from giving effect and/or further effect of all the purported proceedings relating and/or including the communications dated 21st October, 1997, 17th December, 1997, 23rd April, 1998, 8th July, 1998 and 17th/21st July, 1998 and a direction upon the respondents to act in accordance with law. Such writ petition was then formally entertained and interim order was granted by ...
Headmaster Vs. Jainal AbedIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN43
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Headmaster of Balijole High School in the district of Uttar Dinajpur, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, against the order dated 10.9.03 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9545(W) of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1 in the appeal.2. As will appear from the materials on record, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 claims to have been appointed as an organiser assistant teacher in the Bio-Science Group in the Shankarpur H.M.U. Junior High Madrasa, also situated in the district of Uttar Dinajpur. It appears that the Madrasa which was an organised Madrasa, applied for grant of recognition to the West Bengal Madrasa Education Board and pursuant thereto an inspection team visited the Madrasa on 8th March, 2000, but the name of the writ petitioner, who was not present in the school was not recorded by the inspecting team. Subsequently, the West Bengal Madrasa Education Board granted recognition to the Madrasa with effect fr...
Sanjit Das and ors. Vs. Ld. 1st Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN68,(2005)IILLJ870Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. In this writ petition, an interim order of the learned Judge, First Industrial Tribunal dated 17th September, 2003 is under challenge. This order is arising out of an application made by the petitioners under Rule 20D of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, praying, inter alia, to add the workmen as parties in the proceeding and allow them to represent their case individually without getting it espoused by any of the Labour Unions. The Tribunal held that present workmen (eight in numbers) are already on record as their names appear in the list annexed to the order of reference itself. As such, the question of them on record as parties does not and cannot arise. It further held that since the case of the workmen is being espoused by the Union as incorporated in the order of reference, it cannot travel beyond the ambit of the order of reference. The application was ultimately rejected.2. It appears from the first paragraph of the order that the Unions were ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Surendranath Kanungo and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR106(Cal),(2005)1CALLT457(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2004 passed by the learned District Judge while disposing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred in short as the said Act). By the judgment and order impugned the learned Judge rejected the application of the appellant and upheld the award passed by the learned Arbitrator.2. The facts of this case needs to be briefly stated as hereunder :The first respondent by a written contract was entrusted by the appellant to execute a portion of the civil works of extension of runway of the Air Port at Port Blair. The portion of the work given the first respondent essentially involved excavation of earth for a total cost of Rs. 14, 72,36,603/-. The said contract was entered into factually by and between the first respondent and the Executive Engineer, APWD on 29th December 1995. The said written agreement contained an arbitration claus...
In Re: Neelkanth Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]60SCL459(Cal)
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This winding up petition relates to the balance price of the goods sold and delivered amounting to Rs. 2,33,360. Statutory Notice of Demand has not been replied to. On the self same cause of action earlier winding up petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply afresh. Accordingly, the present application has been made by the petitioner. In the Affidavit-in-opposition the company has raised two defence namely (i) since the earlier winding up petition was dismissed on the self same cause of action the present winding up petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the de facto pointed out in the earlier application has not been removed; and (ii) another machine purchased from Eveready Industries Ltd. has been given to the petitioner for repair. The petitioner has refused either to repair it or to send it back to the company which has caused huge loss to the company.2. On careful examination of the pleadings and documents annexed thereto as well a...
Elque Polyesters Ltd. Vs. Cestat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(94)ECC577,2004(170)ELT404(Cal)
Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ-petitioner has challenged the order dated May 6, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by which the said Tribunal had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crore within 8 weeks from the date of the said order as condition precedent for hearing the Appeal on merit.2. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ application.3. Dr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, points out that in the order impugned the Tribunal has mentioned that the Appeal was fixed for a number of times and since huge amount of revenue is involved, the Tribunal observed that a party cannot get liberty to have adjournment after adjournment.4. By pointing out the above observation, Dr. Chakraborty contends that although from the month of January, 2004 several dates were fixed, but on those dates the petitioner never prayed; for adjournment. But in view of the fact that th...
Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Zonal Director General of Foreign T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN9,2005(185)ELT227(Cal),[2006]65SCL369(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioner, the holder of an advance license under para 111 of Handbook of Procedure, 1992-97 has challenged an order passed by the adjudicating authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 14 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) thereby imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,10,63, 820/-.2. The following facts are not in dispute:a) The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause under Section 11 of the Act asking it to justify why action should not be taken for not complying with the obligations of export imposed under the conditions of the advance license.b) In spite of receiving such notice, the petitioner did not answer nor did the petitioner demand any opportunity of hearing. The respondent authority suo motu extended the time to answer the show cause but the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity. Ultimately, the respondent ex parts passed the order impu...
Jayshree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT201(HC),(2005)194CTR(Cal)244,[2005]272ITR193(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The questions2. Reference was sought to be made on the following three questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business carried out in the Allahabad unit did not constitute a part and parcel of a single business carried out by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal had no material to hold that there was no inter-connection, inter-lacing and inter-dependence between the various units of the assessee including the Allahabad unit and accordingly its decision was perverse ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the sum of Rs. 18,40,250 ?'Respondent's objection :3. In the statement of case the Tribunal had referred only the third question. Relying on this Mr. Shome wanted to contend that the entire a...
Prasad Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Special ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]140STC11(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the Notification No. 2425 F.T. dated 12th August, 1999 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner who had established the industrial unit prior to the passing of the said notification. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that it is entitled to get remission of tax by virtue of the prior Notification being No. 1324 F.T. dated April 28, 1995 issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has prayed for further direction upon the respondents to withdraw the purported order dated October 12, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the State respondent has refused to issue eligibility certificate under Section 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 which is applicable to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 under Notification No. 1324 F.T. dated April 28, 1995 with effect from September 1, 1999.2. The following facts are not in dispute :(a) The petitioner was attr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »