Madhya Pradesh Court February 2001 Judgments
Parmanand Das Brij Bhushan Das and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(MP)459; [2001]249ITR328(MP)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. All these revision petitions have been heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order as a common question of law is involved in all these matters. 2. The applicants herein have been convicted under Sections 276E and 278D read with Section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), and sentenced to imprisonment for one day, i.e., till the rising of the court with fine. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, has been affirmed in appeals by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. 3. It is a common ground that Section 276E has been omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. It is curious to note that the complaints against the applicants were filed only a day before the said omission i.e., on March 31, 1989. The common question of law involved in all these petitions is whether the proceedings against the petitioners could not continu...
Tag this Judgment!Vip Industries Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC262(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the sales tax assessment order dated February 11, 1993 (annexure P10) for the period from August 1, 1989 to July 31, 1990.2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by producing the copy of one order dated July 31, 1998, passed by Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 256/PBR/91, that in view of order passed by the Board of Revenue in favour of petitioner, this petition has to be allowed and impugned order of assessment be set aside.3. Perusal of order of Board of Revenue dated July 31, 1998, filed and relied on by the petitioner clearly indicates that it relates to period from August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985. The facts of the case that led to filing of an appeal by the petitioner to Board of Revenue for the period in question (August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985) need mention. An assessment order for the period from August 1, 1984 to July 31, 1985 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bright Drug Industries Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. General Manager, Distric ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC354(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The challenge by the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is to an order dated July 1, 1992 (annexure P/20) and order dated July 9, 1992 (annexure P/21) by which the petitioner's application for grant of eligibility certificate in respect of the concession or/and exemption from payment of sales tax/entry tax is rejected. Facts that led to filing of this petition lie in a narrow compass. They need mention in brief.2. There was a proprietory concern of one Shri Prabhudas Shah called Benson Pharmaceuticals. It had one industrial unit engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmaceutical goods at Industrial Estate at Sanwer Road, Indore. This concern had taken loan from MPFC for running this unit. It appears that since the concern, i.e., Benson Pharmaceuticals failed to repay the loan and hence MPFC invoked their powers conferred under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and advertised the aforesaid unit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2004(167)ELT265(MP)
Arun Mishra, J. 1. Present petition has been filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to direct the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') to refer the question of law to this Court for decision :I. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in allowing adjustment of duty paid under Rule 57F(1)(ii) from the whole demand when on the contrary the Tribunal themselves held that the party intentionally adopted the modus operandi of clearing the goods under Rule 57F(1)(ii) to evade payment of duty.II. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing credit in respect of foundry chemicals, Hydraulic Jacks, Transformers, under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, when the items are not inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The respondent M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Piplani, Bhopal, (hereinafter referred to as 'BHEL') is the manufacturer of items falling ...
Tag this Judgment!Alpine Solvex Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC247; 2001(138)ELT58(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the show cause notice dated 29.1.1993, issued by the Collector Customs and Central Excise (Annexure D). Facts in brief are these.2.The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of finding (sic) [miexed] vegetable oil and is having their solvent extraction plant.3. On 29.1.1993, the Collector Customs and Central Excise issued a show cause notice (Annexure D) to the petitioner. The show cause notice is founded on following allegations:1. M/s. Alpine Solvex Limited, Pithampur (hereinafter referred to as the noticee) having their Registered Office and Solvent Extraction Plant at Mhow Neemuch Road, Pithampur engaged in the manufacture of fixed vegetable oil are found to have carried out fabrication and assembling work of '9' (nine) identifiable items namely (1) seek cleaner, cracker, flaker toaster, extractor, elevators, water treatment plant, and tanks...
Tag this Judgment!Lotan Pd. and Others Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)MPHT125
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. The revision is against the order dated 30-10-2000, passed by the Special Judge, whereby the petitioners/accused have been charged for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the charge-sheet which has been framed against the petitioners-accused does not contain the required ingredients of Section 307 of IPC. He read out the same to contend that there is no material against accused.3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that there is sufficient material on record to frame the charges against the accused-petitioners and the Court-below after considering the entire material on record, passed the impugned order.4. In this case, the FIR had been lodged on 3-7-1992, typed copy of which has been filed by the counsel for the petitioners. On perusal of the FIR, it is noted that the complainant Govindrai, who is lodger of the FIR, earlier had made a written complaint to the concerned police ...
Tag this Judgment!Hariram Vs. State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT178; 2001(2)MPLJ202
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Jaisingh for the applicant and Shri G. Desai, Dy. A.G. for the prosecution.2. So far as the present bail application is concerned, Shri Jaisingh submitted that the investigating agency had arrested Omprakash, the ownerof the hut where the present illicit foreign liquor was found in bottles which was more than 50 bulk litres. He submitted that the statement of Omprakash has been recorded by the Excise Officer concerned and that shows that present applicant was his employee and in the absence of Omprakash was selling the liquor to the customers. Shri Jaisingh submitted that the statement of the applicant has also been recorded in which he had admitted the said information. Shri Jaisingh submitted that the said statement has been retracted by the present applicant and, therefore, it would not be having any credibility at the time of trial against the present applicant.3. Shri Jaisingh submitted that in view of all these things and provisions of Section 49-B and...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Pathak Vs. State of M.P. and Others
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)MPHT247; 2001(3)MPLJ348
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the results of the petitioner and further to declare him to have passed in the subject of English.2. The facts as have been unfolded arc that the petitioner was prosecuting his studies in Higher Secondary School, Hinauti, Distt. Rewa. He filled up his form for appearing in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and admit card was issued for the said purpose. He appeared from the examination centre, namely, non-Government Degree College, Lalgaon, Centre No. 1. As averred in the writ petition the petitioner completed his examination and was hopeful for being successful. It is setforth in the petition that the petitioner's result was published in the newspaper as well as in the booklet and it was reflected therein that he had passed the examination i...
Tag this Judgment!Agrawal Motors Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT267; 2001(3)MPLJ654
ORDERDipak Mishra, J.1. By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for calling for records from the custody of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and upon perusal of the same to issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order contained in Annexure P. 8 and to grant such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation having its retail outlet for petrol and diesel at Baldeobagh, Jabalpur. The petrol pump has been in existence since 1957 and no complaint of any kind has ever been launched against it from its inception. It is set forth in the petition referred to as 'the Act') to provide in the interest of general public for control of production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain commodities. Section 3 of the Act empowers Central Government to control ...
Tag this Judgment!Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR7(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The short question involved in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (annexure XIV), dated March 30, 1993, for the assessment year 1988-89 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-I, Ujjain, is legal or not 2. The challenge to the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment for the assessment year 1988-89 was that firstly no reasons are assigned and even if assigned, they are not cogent reasoning so as to sustain the notice.3. The Department has filed the return and has disclosed the reasons that led to initiation of the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act. These reasons arc duly recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of the impugned notice. They are contained in annexure R3 :'It is seen that the assessee has possessed factory premises named as Beacharaj at Barnagar, Ujjain. The value of the fact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »