Madhya Pradesh Court April 1980 Judgments
Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant Vs. the State of Madhya Pr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1980
Reported in: [1982]50STC287(MP)
ORDERC.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner challenges the assessment order dated 19th May, 1969, passed by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, and the order in appeal dated 27th February, 1971, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur.2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's principal business is to manufacture steel and other steel products. A substantial portion of its manufacture is for purposes of export. The period of assessment with which we are concerned in this petition is from 1st April, 1967, to 31st March, 1968. The petitioner claimed exemption in respect of sales of the value of Rs. 28,13,24,951 on the basis that these sales were in the course of export outside the territory of India and were exempt from taxation under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Regional Assistant Commissioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Munnawar Ahmad and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981MP41; 1980MPLJ577
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 22nd September, 1979 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 4 of the M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 as amended by the M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakbali) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1978 (No. 9 of 1978). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amendments introduced by the Amending Act No. 9 of 1978 are unconstitutional as they contravene Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 is an Act to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. Sections 4 and 5 of the Adhiniyam before the amendment by Act No. 9 of 1978 provided for issue of notice to the occupants to show cause against proposed order of eviction and for eviction after giving opportunity to the occupants of being heard and of producing evidence before the com...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Krishi Sewa Kendra Vs. Government of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981MP44; 1980MPLJ810
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution carries on the business of selling fertilisers at Morena. The challenge in this petition now is to the M. P. Fertiliser (Prices Control) Order, 1974 which was made by the State Government on 23rd July 1974 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rules (2) and (3) (h) of Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.2. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is an Act to provide in the interest of general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain commodities. Section 2(a) of the Act contains the definition of 'essential commodity'. Apart from the enumerated commodities in Clauses (i) to (x) of this definition Clause (xi) empowers the Central Government to declare any other class of commodities to be an essential commodity for the purpose of this Act, being commodity with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws by virtue of Entry...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal Sachdeva and Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax and an ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1980
Reported in: 1980MPLJ756; [1980]46STC444(MP)
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 837 of 1974 (Sargodha Soap Works, Jabalpur v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P.).2. The petitioner in both these petitions is M/s. Brijlal Sachdeva & Brothers, a dealer registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Misc. Petition No. 836 of 1974 relates to the period from 21st October, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, and M. P. No. 837 of 1974 relates to the period from 1st April, 1963, to 31st March, 1964. The assessments for these periods were completed by the Sales Tax Officer on 9th March, 1965, by two orders passed on that date. The assessee filed appeals against these orders which were decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 22nd December, 1965, by two separate orders. By these orders passed in the appeals, the assessments were set aside and the cases were remanded for fresh assessment. The assessment in each case was then made by the Sales Tax Officer by two separate orders passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ummedibai and ors. Vs. Bhikam Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981MP53; 1981MPLJ219
H.G. Mishra, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgmentand decree of affirmance dated 20-9-79 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 26-4-77 dismissing their suit on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata was afirmed.2. Facts material for decision of this appeal are as under:Manila Ummedibai, plaintiff No. 1, is the wife of Daulatsingh and Roopsingh, plaintiff No. 2 and Udhamsingh (minor), plaintiff No. 3, who is represented by his Mother acting as next friend are sons of Daulatsingh and they are members of joint Hindu family. Bhikamsingh, defendant, had brought a civil suit against Daulatsingh in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha, for issuance of mandatory injunction directing removal of encroachment made by the defendant by constructing a platform (Chabutara) and for issuance of a permanent injunction restaining Daulatsingh from preventing flowing of water of daily use discharged from the house of the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Oxygen and Acetylene Ltd., Jabalpur Vs. State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981MP17; 1980MPLJ635
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26th October 1977 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner also challenges the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30th June 1978 and the order dated 22nd September, 1978, passed by the same Authority rejecting the review application.2. The petitioner is the owner of urban property bearing municipal Number 851, Nazul block No. 5, plot No. 23, within the corporation limits of Jabalpur city. The said property consists of residential building and one outhouse with vacant land around the construction. The total area of plot No. 23 is 26,535 sq. ft. The area covered by the constructions is 2650 sq. ft. The proceedings before the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, started on issuance of six notices by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act to the Competent Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC183(MP)
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 119, 120 and 121, all of 1977.2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner is registered as a dealer in Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This dispute before us relates to the assessments under both the Acts for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. For the year 1962 63 the petitioner deposited Rs. 3,795 under the State Act and Rs. 7,343.82 as tax under the Central Act along with its returns. For the year 1963-64, the petitioner deposited Rs. 61,261.99 under the State Act and Rs. 55,679.62 under the Central Act as tax along with its returns. The petitioner was assessed for these years by order of the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed on 27th October, 1967. For the year 1962-63 the tax under the State Act was assessed at Rs. 1,51,615.55 and the assessment under the Central Act was nil. For the year 1963-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bansal Brothers
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC147(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, referring for our answer the following question of law :Whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessee is liable to pay sales tax in respect of declared goods which he had purchased from a registered dealer after payment of tax at the full rate and without furnishing to him the declarations in the prescribed form ?2. The relevant period in the instant case is from 28th June, 1969, to 31st March, 1970. The assessee, Bansal Brothers, carries on the business of sale of iron scrap and bricks. The assessee purchased iron scrap for Rs. 28,073 from a registered dealer after payment of tax to him as part of the sale price without furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form. The assessee sold the same goods for Rs. 30,313,34 to consumers. The question before us is ...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1980
Reported in: [1983]54STC195(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the railway freight deducted by the assessee in the bill and actually paid by the purchaser at the destination is part of the sale price and as such exigible to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?2. The assessee is a paper mill situated at Amlai, district Shahdol. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of different varieties of paper. The relevant period for this case is 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967. The assessee is a registered dealer both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. In the assessment proceedings under the Central Act, the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 33,96,452 which was paid as freight by the purchasers, should not be included in the sale price and...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh Harbans Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC347(MP)
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 94, 360, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597 and 644 of 1979.2. The petitioners in all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are registered dealers under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. They deal in purchase and sale of different commodities including jeera*, ajwain* somph*, methi* and dania*. For the assessment years 1963-64 to 1972-73, sales of these commodities were assessed to sales tax for which purpose they were treated as falling under the residuary entry No. 1, Schedule II, Part VI, of the Act and not as oil-seeds. Tax was charged at 6 per cent or 7 per cent. The petitioners accepted the assessment and paid tax accordingly. However, in a case arising under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held these articles to be 'oil-seeds' within the meaning of Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act and gave the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »