Madhya Pradesh Court April 1962 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.
Firm Janta Hardware Stores and ors. Vs. B.S. Parihar, Asstt. Sales Tax ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1962MP315; [1963]14STC67(MP)
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution or the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing three re-assessment orders under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, in respect of three years from 1957 to 1960, imposing a total amount of Rs. 23,1 4.19 nP. as tax and penalty on the petitioner.2. The petitioner was in the normal course assessed to sales tax for three years included in the period from 24th October, 1957 to 19th October, 1960. On 17th October, 1961 three notices in respect of the three accounting years stated above were issued to the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act for escaped assessment. The notices directed the petitioner to appear before the Sales Tax Officer with account-books for the period. It was mentioned in the notices that they had been issued on the basis of a report made by Shri Ghai, the Sales Tax Inspector. It appears that on 10th October, 1961, the Sales Tax inspector paid a visit to the shop of th...
Nemichand Chhogalal and ors. Vs. Rekhchand Akhechand and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1964MP258
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal against ai order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 Civil Procedure Code, is, whether the plaintiffs are rightly held entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. The plaintiffs Rekhchand and Gokalchand in their capacity as principals filed the present suit against their adhtiyas-Keshrimal Indarmal of Khargone. The firm Keshrimal Indarmal is alleged to be owned by the four partnars who are named as defendants in this suit. The claim made in the suit was for accounts in respect of transactions which took place on Pos Sudi 15, Samvat 2004, corresponding to 26th January 1948. There were no further transactions between the parties. The cause of action in the suit was mentioned to arise on the 26th January 1943 and also on the data of notice demanding account and the date of reply sent by the defendants that is, 10th August 1949 and 2nd September 1949 respectively. The suit was Initially filed in the court at Barw...
Daluram Pannalal Modi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC759(MP)
ORDERP.V. Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore region, on 31st March, 1961, consequent to a notice under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for 'escaped assessment' assessing the petitioner to sales tax in the sum of Rs. 31,250 and imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 15,000 under Section 14(i)(c) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950.2. The material facts are that the petitioner Daluram Modi was a registered dealer under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, doing the business of selling sugar and other commodities at Ratlam. He was also registered as a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, when that Act came into force. For the year 1957-58 his taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 5,27,230 and he was accordingly assessed to tax on 20th January, 1959, under the Madhya Bhara...
Devi and ors. Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ543
A.H. Khan, J.1. In the course of a bail-application, it was argued before me that the trial of the accused was being delayed by the tactics of the Police. I sent for the record and discovered that 3rd October, 1961, was fixed for the trial of the accused along with eight other persons, but on this date, the Public Prosecutor did not produce any witness and the Court adjourned it for the next day. On the next day also, the prosecution witnesses were not examined and the Court again adjourned the case for the third day. On the third day, too, the Public Prosecutor failed to examine any witness and the trial Court then in sheer disgust postponed the trial to 28-11-1961. During all these three days, the reason why the Public Prosecutor was not examining the prosecution witnesses was that on the very date, when the trial was to open i. e., on 3-10-1961, he had moved the Sessions judge Bhind, for the transfer of the case. In fairness ho should have told the trial Judge of his intention to mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›