Mumbai Court April 1956 Judgments
Satyanarayana Oil Trading Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1956
Reported in: 19567STC548Tribunal
1. Sri M. Anandam, Chartered Accountant, on behalf M/s. Satyanarayana Oil Trading Company, Gulbarga, appellant, and the Sales Tax Officer, Gulbarga, on behalf of the Sales Tax Department, appeared before us.Heard their arguments.2. M/s. Satyanarayana Oil Trading Co., Gulbarga, has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, on the following grounds, namely that: 1. The Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner erred in taxing the purchase turnover of groundnut and cotton seeds as they were not sold but were consumed in manufacturing oil. The tax is payable by a dealer or casual trader under Section 5(1) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act only when the same are re-sold. 2. To levy tax on purchases is ultra vires as the purpose of the enactment is to levy tax on sales only. 3. The Deputy Commissioner is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,000.3. Regarding items Nos. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal the learned authorised repres...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabishen Mohanlal Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1956
Reported in: 19567STC460Tribunal
1. The Sales Tax Officer assessed taxable turnover of the appellant for the year 1954-55 to be Rs. 1,73,987-15-0 and the learned Deputy Commissioner on appeal confirmed the taxable turnover to be Rs. 97,806-8-3 and ordered also to remit under Section 11(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950, the sum of Rs. 1,773-1-3 said to have been collected as tax by the appellant on non-taxable commodities.The appellant has preferred this appeal before us against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate) on the following grounds, namely that: (1) the Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, erred in asking the appellant to remit under Section 11 (2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act the sum of Rs. 1,773-1-3 which he withheld out of the moneys payable to his non-resident principals under doubtful liability of the turnover to sales tax as a protective measure and entered in the suspense account. It is payable to the principals. (2) the Sales Tax Officer and the...
Tag this Judgment!Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'souza Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR989
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing an application made to it under Article 226 of the Constitution. These proceedings relate to the validity of an order of detention passed by the Government of Bombay on June 8, 1955, againstthe appellant before us, who is an advocate of the High Court of Bombay having a standing of about thirty years. He was in the Indian Air Force as an emergency Commissioned Officer between 1943 to 1948 and thereafter on extension for another four years until he attained the age of 55. It appears that he was also interested in journalism and in public affairs. On his own showing, he was concerned over the political future of Goa and 'was opposed to any attempts at intimidation of Indian residents of Goan origin by other political groups and has freely expressed these views in his journalistic articles'. He was arrested on June 9, 1955, and is in detention since then under the impugned or...
Tag this Judgment!Hiranand Ramsukh Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1956
Reported in: 19567STC510Tribunal
1. Shri Bhagwat Patil, Income Tax and Sales Tax Practitioner, on behalf of the appellant, and Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, on behalf of the Department, appeared. Heard their arguments.2. Shri Hiranand Ramsukh has filed this appeal against the decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, who upholding the assessment of the Sales Tax Officer ordered to remit the amount of Rs. 3,762-14-3 under Section 11(2) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950.3. Hiranand Ramsukh is the selling commission agent on behalf of resident and non-resident principals, in taxable and non-taxable goods.He withheld under Section 18(3) of the Act certain sums amounting to Rs. 3,513-7-0 and Rs. 249-7-3 out of the moneys payable to his non-resident and resident principals respectively, as tax under doubtful liability of the turnover to levy of sales tax under the Act.These amounts have been entered in the separate accounts of his individual constituents opened for that purpose.4. It is an admitte...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Babaji and ors. Vs. Akharam Sahebram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Bom18; (1956)58BOMLR804; ILR1956Bom918
Shah, J. 1. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 40 of 1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, against the defendants who are brothers for a decree on a promissory note for Rs. 15,351/- executed by them on 25th July, 1947, after giving credit for Rs. 4,375//4/- received in part satisfaction of the dues under the promissory note. It was the plaintiff's case, that on 25th July, 1947, all the four defendants executed a promissory note agreeing to pay Rs. 15,351/- on demand together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent and that in part satisfaction of their liability under the promissory note the defendants had sent some jaggery to the plaintiff's shop for being sold on commission and the proceeds thereof were credited towards the account and the balance of Rs. 15,728/- remained due and payable by the defendants. The suit was resisted by all the defendants.(After stating facts and discussing questions not material for reporting the judgment proceeds). 2. Then i...
Tag this Judgment!India Coffee House Vs. their Workmen (Class Iv Servants)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ211Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10 and 10(1); Coffee Act, 1942AWARD1. This is a reference by the Government of Bombay, under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication of the industrial dispute between India Coffee Houses at Lamington and Mahatma Gandhi Roads, Bombay, and the workmen (class IV servants) employed under them, over the demands mentioned in the schedule to the order of reference; vide Development Department Order, No. AJI, 1455, dated 28 December, 1955. The demands of the workmen are as follows :- Schedule. Demand 1 - Pay scales :- Rs. A. Head coffee maker ... 45 - 5 - 90 Head assistant coffee maker ... 40 - 4 - 80 Coffee maker ... 35 - 3 - 65 B. Head pantryman ... 45 - 5 - 90 Assistant head pantryman ... 40 - 4 - 80 Pantryman ... 35 - 3 - 65 C. Head bearer ... 45 - 5 - 90 Head assistant bearer ... 40 - 4 - 80 Bearer ... 35 - 3 - 65 D. Head cleaner ... 40 - 3 - 65 Assistant head cleaner ... 3...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Sambiah Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1956
Reported in: 19567STC508Tribunal
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. D.R. Sambiah against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Appellate, who disallowed his appeal. Shri K.K. Chander Sekhar, Chartered Accountant, on behalf of the appellant and Sri Ram Manohar, Sales Tax Officer, 3rd Circle, State Representative, appeared before us. Heard their arguments.2. Among other varieties the appellant is a dealer in silk cloth. He contends before us that he being a second dealer in silk cloth in the State he can be taxed only at the general rate on his turnover of silk cloth and not at the additional rate, as held by the Sales Tax Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Appellate.3. The only point for consideration by us is whether the appellant is the first dealer in silk cloth in Hyderabad State and is therefore liable to pay the tax at the additional rate, under Rule 7 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act of 1950.4. Rule 7 reads as under : "The sale of any of the goods mentioned in Schedule...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottamdas Dwarkadas Patel Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: 19567STC375Tribunal
1. The main grievance in this case is as regards an application for refund made by the applicants on 1st March, 1953, under Section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946. That section provides as follows : " The Collector shall, in the prescribed manner, refund to a registered dealer applying in this behalf any amount of tax paid by such dealer in excess of the amount due from him under this Act, either by cash payment or, at the option of the dealer, by deduction of such excess from the amount of tax due in respect of any other period : Provided that no claim to refund of any tax paid under this Act shall be allowed unless it is made within twenty-four months from the date on which the order of assessment was passed or within twelve months of the final order passed on appeal, revision, or reference in respect of the order of assessment, whichever period is later. Provided further that the Collector shall first apply the excess paid in respect of any period towards the recovery of an...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mahomed Haji Usman and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom700; 1956CriLJ1302
Dixit, J.1. This appeal arises from a complaint filed by one Mahadev Shantaram Pawar, Manager, Sable Waghire & Co. for offences under Sections 482, 483 and 486, I. P. C. The prosecution story, as set out in the complaint, is as follows: --The complainant is the Bombay Manager of the firm of M/s. Sable Waghire & Co. of Poona. The firm has a sales office in Bombay. Accused 1 is a bidi merchant and he carries on business near the Null Bazar Market. Accused 2 is a tobacco dealer in Poona. The firm of M/s Sable Waghire & Co. manufactures bidis, according to the complainant, for over thirty years and the bidis which arc manufactured are known as 'Shivaji bidis' or 'Chhatrapati bidis'. The bidis in question together with the labels are the property of the firm and they are registered as a trade mark and property mark with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, the registration number being 12549 of 25-2-1943.According to the complainant, the goods have acquired popularity and the labels which ...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1956
Reported in: 19567STC373Tribunal
1. The only point argued in this case was whether the authorities below were justified in adding to the sale price the town duty paid by them on the goods at the time of their import into the city of Bombay. The price of cement in which they deal is fixed at the controlled rate of Rs. 89-8-0 per ton and in their bills the applicants charged sales tax at 1/2 anna per rupee on the said price plus town duty at one rupee per ton. It has been admitted that under the Control Order, the company was entitled to add local taxes and sales tax to the controlled price. Mr.Mehta has contended that the sale price should not be held to include the town duty, and he has relied on a decision of the Andhra High Court in The State of Andhra v. Shree Bujranga Jute Mills Ltd. [1955] 6 S.T.C. 376, in support of his contention. The said High Court no doubt decided that sales tax collected by a dealer from the customers cannot be included in his net turnover, and that it is not liable to be taxed again ; but...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »