Madhya Pradesh Court February 1966 Judgments
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: [1966]17STC527(MP)
K.L. Pandey, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Board of Revenue has stated the case under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and referred to this Court for its opinion the following question of law :Whether charcoal is covered under entry No. 1 of Part III of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and is taxable at the rate of 2 per cent, or will be taxable at the rate of 4 per cent. under entry No. 1 of Part VI of Schedule II to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958?2. The petitioner is a dealer in firewood and charcoal. He was assessed to sales tax under Section 18(6) of the Act for the period 29th March, 1962, to 29th April, 1962, on the ground that, during this period, he did not have any registration certificate. The Additional Sales Tax Officer, Ujjain, and the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Indore, concurrently held that charcoal was not covered by entry No. 1 of Part III but fell under the residuary ...
Tag this Judgment!Baldoo Banshi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1966MP273
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 498 and 499, both of 1965.2. The three petitioners, who are agriculturists, challenge the validity of action taken by the Collector, Narsinghpur, in the exercise of his powers under Clause 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Wheat Stock Requisitioning Order, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Order), in seizing certain quantity of wheat from each of them. They pray that the seizure proceedings taken against them be quashed and that the opponents be restrained from faking any action against them under the Order.3. The matter arises thus. All the three petitioners are agriculturists engaged in the cultivation and production of wheat in Narsinghpur district. The Collector, Narsinghpur, first made an order under Clause 3 of the Order calling upon each of the petitioners to declare the stock of wheat held by him on his own behalf or on behalf of others, in the form attached to the order under Clause 3 served on them. In c...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Verma and ors. Vs. Narainprasad Sampatram and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967MP243
Krishnan, J.1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed from the orders of fee First Additional District Judge at Indore on two election petitions, fee first (41) is an order of dismissal of fee petitioners' election petition under Rule 43 of fee Cantonment Electoral Rules in regard to an ejection to the Cantonment Board at Mhow. The other petition (No. 43 of 1965) is by fee elected member whose election to the same cantonment board has been set aside on an election petition by the defeated candidate who is opposite party No. 1 in this Court. While the facts in controversy in the two cases are different they have one common point of law which has been raised as a preliminary issue here and which alone is being decided at this stage.2. The question is whether a petition under Rule 43 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules can be enquired into and disposed of under Rule 45 by an Additional District Judge to whom the District Judge transfers it, there having ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›