Mumbai Court July 1959 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.
The Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay State Vs. Gaurimal Mahajan and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC452(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. The question which falls to be determined in this reference is whether 'dressed poultry' is included in the connotation of the expression 'meat' as used in entry No. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. 2. The assessees are dealers in food-stuffs. Between 1st April, 1951, and 31st October, 1952, they sold live and dressed poultry. The Sales Tax Authorities sought to tax the goods sold by the assessees. Under entry No. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, and entry No. 33 of Schedule 'A' to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Sales Tax Tribunal was of the view that dressed poultry was exempted from payment of sales tax. Thereafter at the instance of the Collector of Sales Tax, a reference has been made to this Court on the following question :- 'Whether the sale of dressed poultry by the opponents (assessees) can be regarded as a sale of meat within the meaning of entry 4 of Schedule II to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 ?' 3. By ...
Sohli F. Vakil Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC358(Bom)
SHAH, J.1. The assessees Messrs Sohli F. Vakil purchased on the 19th of December, 1952, a motor car which was brought on that day to Bombay by one Mohabat Rai from delhi, and delivery of that car was given to the assessees by the vendor in Bombay. On the 22nd of December, 1952, the Delhi Registration Number was changed and the Bombay Registration Number was assigned to the vehicle. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessees to purchase tax under section 18 of the Bombay Sales Tax (No. 2) Ordinance, 1952, and subjected the transaction to additional tax. The contention of the assessees that the transaction was not liable to purchase tax was negatived by the Collector of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Sales Tax Tribunal has then referred at the instance of the assessees the following question : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner was liable to pay the purchase tax under section 18 of the Bombay Sales Tax (No. 2) Ordinance, 1952 ?' Section 18 of...
Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1383; [1959]10STC500(Bom)
Shah, J.1. Messrs Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. carry on business as dealers in tea in Bombay. They have been registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. Messrs Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. who will be hereafter referred to as 'the assessees' purchased diverse brands of tea and without the application of any mechanical or chemical processes mixed up the brands of tea purchased in bulk by them and sold the tea as tea mixture. The mixing, however, is not haphazard but according to the formula which was evolved by the assessees. In the assessment of sales tax the assessees claimed that the value of the tea purchased by them should be deducted from the turnover under section 8 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The Sales Tax Authorities did not accept the contention of the assessees having regard to the proviso to clause (a) of section 8 and did not allow deduction for the value of the tea purchased out of the turnover. The Sales Tax Tribunal also affirmed the view of t...
D.P. Dave Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC137(Bom)
Shah, J.1. Messrs D. P. Dave, who will hereafter be referred to as 'the assessees', are carrying on business of selling drugs in the town of Ahmedabad. Under entry 4 of Schedule II of the Bombay Sales Tax Ordinance (No. 2) of 1952 they were assessed to pay special tax on medicinal preparations which included alcohol on the footing that such medicinal preparations were 'foreign liquor' as defined in clause (17) of section 2 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The assessees claimed that they were not liable to pay special tax as well as general tax. That contention was negatived by the taxing authorities and also by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Sales Tax Tribunal has at the instance of the assessees referred the following question : 'Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the sales by the applicant (assessees) of medical preparations containing alcohol have been rightly subjected to tax as sales of foreign liquor under entry 4 of Schedule II of the Bombay Sales Tax Ordin...
Daulatram Lachhmandas Nayar Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR698
Shelat, J.1. This is a petition for direction to the respondent to cancel two orders, one an order of requisition and the other, an order of allotment dated respectively November 5 and 7, 1957, and for a further direction that the respondent should hand over possession of fiat No. 1 in St. James' Court, Marine Drive, to the petitioners.2. The petitioners are the owners of the building known as St. James' Court which consists in all of 24 flats. The petitioners are brothers and are the joint owners of the said building. Petitioner No. 1 has been staying all the while in a flat in another building called 'Shiv Sadah', Marine Drive.3. Upto September 30, 1957, one C.M. Agarwal was a tenant of the petitioners in respect of flat No. 1 in the building, St. James' Court. On July 25, 1957, a notice from the Accommodation Officer was received by petitioner No. 1. The notice stated that the Government had made inquiries and were considering the question of requisitioning the flat under the Bombay...
jaiswal Medical Stores Vs. Assistant Drugs Controller
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1531
Tambe, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner prays that (1) a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated December 26, 1958, made by the Assistant Drugs Controller, respondent No. 1 hereto, and quashing the appellate order dated April 27, 1959, marie by the State of Bombay, respondent No. 2 hereto; (2) a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the licences of the petitioner and (3) any other suitable writ or order.2. It is not in dispute that since about the year 1952 the petitioner has been granted licences in Forms 20 and 21 under the Drugs Act, 1940, to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs by retail other than those specified in 'Schedules C and C(1), as well as those mentioned in Schedules C and C(1). In other words, the petitioner has been granted licences to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs which are both biological and special products as well as those which a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Purshottamdas Thakurdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1521
Shah, J. (1) The assessee has a large divided income beside income from securities, property, business and other sources. By notice under section 18A (1) of the Income-tax Act the assessee was called upon to make advance payment of tax on so much of his income from which tax was not deducted at source as was included in his total income of his latest previous yea in respect of which he had been assessed. The assessees submitted a statement of his income for S. Y. 2002 and estimated his total income including foreign income at Rs. 4,46,000. He claimed that to Rs. 3,64,000 out of his total income section 18 of the Income-tax Act applied and the income to which section 18A applied was Rs. 1,00,000. He then estimated that Rs. 32,940 were payable as income-tax on the income to which section 18A applied and Rs. 2,44,812 were payable as super-tax on total income of Rs. 4,64,000. After claiming credit for Rs. 10,000 for double income-tax relief he estimated Rs. 2,67,752 as payable by him as ad...
Rai Saheb Seth Gopikisan Agarwal Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Gondia and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1517; [1960]11STC329(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This judgment in Special Civil Application No. 401 of 1958 shall also govern the decision of Special Civil Application No. 402 of 1958. Both these petitions arise out of the matter arising out of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Petition No. 402 relates to the year 1952-53 and Petition No. 401 relates to the year 1953-54. 2. Rai Saheb Seth Gopikisan Agarwal, petitioner in both the cases, was a registered dealer at the material time within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner is a proprietor of the business known as Rai Saheb Gopikisan Agarwal, Mine Owners and Exporters, having his office at Tumsar, a place in the Vidarbha region. The petitioner's firm, according to him, carries on business of extracting manganese and exporting the ore outside India. The petitioner's accounting year is from Diwali to Diwali. The petitioner, therefore, has chosen this year for the purpose of the sales tax. Accordingly the year 1952-53 was for purposes of accou...
Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1514
Shah, J.(1) The assessees who are a limited company obtained on lease a plot of land at the Backbay Reclamation in Bombay and put up a residential building which could be adapted for use as a hotel, and furnished the same by installing furniture and fixtures and let it out to a tenant under a deed dated 30-8-1948 for six years for using it as a hotel. After the expiry of the first period of lease another deed of lease was executed on 13-8-1949. Under that lease the lessee agreed to pay a net monthly rental of Rs. 5,950/- for the lease of building and at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- for the hire of furniture and fixtures. Initiaily, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income received under the lease under S. 12 of the Income-tax. For the assessment year 1952-53, th assessmen proceedings were brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal observed in the course of its judgment though that question did not arise in the case that 'the question whether incoem from that property should be computed ...
Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Kundanmal Sardarmal Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1511; (1960)ILLJ63Bom
Tambe, J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Company, Ltd., Akola, seeks to get quashed order dated 7 May, 1958, made by the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, respondent 2 hereto. 2. Facts in brief are that respondent 1 Kundanmal Sardarmal Jain was employed as a clerk in the petitioner mills and at the material time he was drawing Rs. 130 inclusive of all allowances. It appears that certain disputes relating to the textile mills between the employers and the employees of the textile mills in Berar were referred to an arbitration of Mr. Justice Mangalmurti and the award was made by him some time in the year 1949. In pursuance of that award standing orders were framed for different mills. We are here concerned with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 14 of the standing orders. It reads : 'Sick leave on full average pay shall be granted to clerks up to a maximum of eight days in a completed period of one year'...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »