Mumbai Court January 1977 Judgments
Maniar and Sons Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)19; [1977]40STC562(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the assessees, who are a partnership firm and were registered as a dealer under the said Act and also held a licence under section 23 of the said Act, in respect of the assessment period 3rd November, 1965, to 31st March, 1966. 2. The facts material for the purposes of deciding this reference are that during the said assessment period the applicants purchased plastic bangles of the value of Rs. 2,89,990 from Aurobrite (India) Private Limited. In respect of the bangles so purchased by them Aurobrite (India) Private Limited issued to the applicants invoices in which at the end there appear the words : 'G.S. Tax - | included.' Sales Tax - 3. The amount of such tax included in the invoices was not separately shown. During the assessment period the applicants resold the bangles so purchased by them for a total price of Rs. 3,92,208. Out of these sales, sales of the value of Rs. 50...
Tag this Judgment!Maniar and Sons Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)119
Madon, J. 1. This is a Reference under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the assesses, who are a partnership firm and were registered as a dealer under the said Act and also held a licence under S. 23 of the said Act, in respect of the assessment period Nov. 3, 1965 to March 31, 1966. 2. The facts material for the purposes of deciding this Reference are that during the said assessment period the Applicants purchased plastic bangles of the value of Rs. 2,89,900 from authority (India) Private Limited. In respect of the bangles so purchased by them Aurobrite (India) Private Limited issued to the Applicants Invoices in which at the end there appear the words :- 'G.S. Tax) ) included' Sales Tax) The amount of such tax included in the invoices was not separately shown. During the assessment period the Applicants resold the bangles so purchased by them for a total price of Rs. 3,92,208/- Out of these sales, sales of the value of Rs. 50,000/- were effected to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Poona Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)536
Madon, J. 1. In each of these thirteen references under S. 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'The said Act') made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the same question has been referred to us viz. 'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the first part of sub-clause (2) of S. 46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the word 'person' occurring therein applies only to a person who is a dealer and not to a person who is not a dealer in respect of the transactions and therefore the order forfeiting the amount of tax collected on casual sale was bad in law ?' Parties in all these references are the same and so are the facts necessary for the determination of these references. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these thirteen references by a common judgment. 2. The respondent, the Poona Municipal Corporation, was at all material time registered as a dealer under the said Act. During the per...
Tag this Judgment!Mohit Gajadhar Ahir Vs. Inderbali Rangai Ahir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Bom445
ORDER1. This is a revision application by the original plaintiff against the appellate order of the Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The facts of the litigation which may be noted for the purpose of appreciating the present revision application are these :2. Umer Mansion, Arthur Road, Jacob Circle, Bombay-11, is a property belonging to a trust of which original defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and present respondents Nos. 2 to 6 or 7 appeared to be the trustees. The plaintiff's case in the trial Court was that one Khodabhai was the original tenant of room No. 3 of these premises from the trustees. Khodabhai consented in writing that the tenancy be transferred in the name of the plaintiff and on the strength of that writing, the trustees not only acted upon it but actually accepted the plaintiff as a tenant of that room and issued rent bills in his name from the year 1960. In this manner as a lawful tenant of room No. 3 directly from the trustees the plaintiff is in occupati...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)317
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under S. 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') made at the instance of the assessees. 2. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether there was any material on record to support the finding that the applicants had suppressed sales to the Bombay dealer ?'. The assessees conducted an oil mill and manufactured edible oil for sale. They also purchased oil for resale. They maintained regular books of account in respect of their business. Information was furnished by the Sales Tax Officer (I) Enforcement Branch, Bombay, to the Sales Tax Officer assessing the assessee at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Sales Tax Officer') that on 7th June 1960 the said Sales Tax Officer had raided the place of business of M/s. Shaichand Hemchand & Co. in Bombay and had seized certain books of account in which there were entries showing that the Bombay dealer viz. M/s. Bhaichand H...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Polychem Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]39STC315(Bom)
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of entry 19A of Schedule E of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that 'polynite sheets' manufactured and sold by the respondents are not goods made primarily from plastics falling under the said entry ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The respondents are a public limited company and manufacture products known in the trade as 'styron' (plastic moulding powder) and polynite sheets. On 21st September, 1967, the respondents filed two applications under section 52 of the said Act before the applicant requesting him to determine the rate of tax applicable to the sales of the aforesaid two products, viz.,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]39STC493(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') made at the instance of the assessees. 2. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether there was any material on record to support the finding that the applicants had suppressed sales to the Bombay dealer ?' 3. The assessees conducted an oil mill and manufactured edible oil for sale. They also purchased oil for resale. They maintained regular books of account in respect of their business. Information was furnished by the Sales Tax Officer (I), Enforcement Branch, Bombay, to the Sales Tax Officer assessing the assessees at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Sales Tax Officer') that on 7th June, 1960, the said Sales Tax Officer had raided the place of business of M/s. Bhaichand Hemchand & Co. in Bombay and had seized certain books of account in which there were entries showing that the Bombay dealer, viz., M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Putla Rustomji Messman Vs. Gul Mani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom48
Deshmukh, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of the orders passed in Notice of Motion by the City Civil Court which was set aside in appeal from Order NO. 264/76 by a learned single Judge of this Court. Being aggrieved, he has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.2. It is not necessary to notice the facts in detail, though they may be mentioned very briefly to know the natureof the order that was passed by the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff claims to be the sub-tenant of certain premises in this town which were allowed to be used by the defendant jointly under an agreement dated Sept, 28, 1970. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has merely been given licence for joint user along with him in the same premises. Since the plaintiff was being disturbed by the defendant in their joint possession and user, he filed the present Suit No. 1106/75 in the City Civil Court at Bombay. The substantive prayer in the suit is that the plaintiff's joint possession should be held proved...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Devidayal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)424; [1978]41STC184(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. In this reference under S. (61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, two questions have been referred to us, the first at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the second at the instance of the Respondents. These two questions are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned transactions covered by final bill No. B-12/19/Imp-E-30 dated 25-2-1964 effected by the respondents with the scheduled units were not sales within the meaning of S. 2(28) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing the Applicant to argue that on the facts of the case the sales were sales protected by Article 286 being sales in course of import ?' 2. At the hearing of this reference Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, stated that the respondents did not desire this Court to answer the second...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mulla Akbarally Tayabally
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)309
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under S. 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The questions referred to us for our determination are as follows : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of S. 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Sales Tax Officer (XVII), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay, could not initiate the proceedings under that section on the ground that the original assessment under S. 14 was made by the Sales Tax Officer, E Ward, Bombay 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of S. 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Sales Tax Officer (XVII), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay, Bombay, had valid jurisdiction to pass re-assessment order in the case of the respondent and the notice issued and the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »