Orissa Court February 1970 Judgments
Ramchandra Ramniwas Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC412(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The question referred to this court under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act is as follows :-Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to exemption of sales tax in respect of sales on chillies to Messrs Ramchandra Beharilal, having registration certificate No. BA-56 on account of the fact that the term 'grocery' includes chillies.2. Facts relevant to the question may be stated in brief. Ramchandra Ramniwas (petitioner) carries on business in grocery articles. He sold chillies (red pepper) on 2nd January, 1960, for Rs. 1,837.78 to Messrs Ramchandra Beharilal of Bhadrak, having registration No. BA-56. The Sales Tax Tribunal, Mr. P.C. De, who heard the second appeal, held that chillies do not come within the meaning of the word 'grocery' and as such the purchasing dealer was not entitled to purchase chillies free of sales tax and consequently the selling dealer (petitioner) was liable to pay sales tax.3. On a reference to the r...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Rajkishore Panda
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-27-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ186
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The opposite party was being prosecuted Under Section 116(1)(a), read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Poor Adulteration Act (No. 87 of 1954), The hearing of the case was over and it was posted for judgment to 13-12-69, Just on the previous day the Prosecuting Inspector (Vigilance) filed an application for withdrawal of the case, Under Section 494, Criminal P.C. The grounds taken in that application were :1. That on points of law, as, it appears, that there is some defect in initiation of proceedings in the above-noted case, it is desirable that I should withdraw from the prosecution.2. That it is necessary for the ends of justice that I may be permitted to withdraw from the prosecution and necessary orders may kindly be passed as provided by law,This application was taken up on 13.12.69 and the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) passed the following orders :The judgment is ready, but the P. I. Vigilance has filed a memo for withdrawing the caae. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasilal Agarwalla Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-26-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC569(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The assessee was assessed to sales tax for the years ending 1962-63 and 1963-64. The agreement relating to the contract was not made an annexure but a copy thereof has been supplied to us by Mr. Mohanty. Law is well settled that if the contractor does construction of roads and that is the subject-matter of the agreement, then he is not liable to sales tax even if he supplies materials for the purpose of construction. The principle is whether goods passed to the purchaser as movables or as accessories to the immovable property. A road is an immovable property. All movables which are constituents of the road passed to the State as a part of the immovable property. 'Sale' means sale of movables and not sale of immovable property within the meaning of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. It was therefore imperative on the part of the Sales Tax Officer to clearly analyse the terms of the agreement and other evidence to come to the conclusion whether the various movables passed to t...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Choudhury and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR493(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. This reference has been made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Two questions have been framed by the assessee asking for reference. They are !' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount recovered by the Government as penalty for non-supply of paddy according to specification was not deductible as expenditure under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the estimate of profit at 121/2 per cent. on the gross value of the works executed by the applicant which includes the cost of the materials supplied by the contractee, Public Works Department ' 2. The second question was not referred to this court and so the assessee filed S. J. C. No. 61/1966, asking for reference and the same was dismissed on December 12, 1966.3. The facts relevant to question No. 1 may be stated in a narrow compass. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax a ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC233(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner is M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela. It is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. It filed an application to include the following items in its certificate of registration so as to purchase those articles on payment of tax at concessional rate. The application covered nine items as stated hereunder :1. Mechanical and electrical plant, machinery and equipment with accessories including spares.2. Steel structures and fabricated parts.3. Refractories and fireclay.4. Construction equipment and tools and tackles including spares.5. Locomotive, vehicles, rolling-stock and track materials.6. Paints, varnishes, chemicals and explosives.7. Construction materials such as, but not limited to, cement, steel, pipes and pipe fittings, asbestos sheets, G.I. sheets, wire ropes.8. Erection materials such as, but not limited to, cables, welding materials, electrical bulb, petrol, diesel oil, lubricants, grease, hardware materials, bolts and nuts and ...
Tag this Judgment!Popatlal Devram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR1013(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ')-' Whether the memorandum of partition dated May 1, 1957, evidencing previous partition on April 1, 1957, is inadmissible in law for want of registration '2. The facts leading to this reference may be clearly stated. Popatlal Devram was being assessed to income-tax as karta of an undivided family up to the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee had the following sources of income which were being taken into account :(a) house property, (b) individual business as a contractor, (c) share income from Messrs. Rasiklal & Co. in respect of grocery and stationery business; and (d) share income from Messrs. H. B. Pandey & Co, This is transport business. 3. The joint family consisted of Popatlal Devram (party No. 1 to the memorandum of partition drawn up on 1st May, 1957), his two sons, Bhagwanlal Popatlal and Rasiklal Pop...
Tag this Judgment!Netrananda Barik Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Ori227
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1951 (Act 11 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to make the impugned award on 27-3-62 in a dispute raised by Opposite Party No. 2. That award of the Assistant Registrar was challenged in an appeal before the Deputy Registrar under Section 128 (1) of the Act and was also subjected to two revisions in succession -- one under Section 131 before the Registrar and the other under Section 132 (1) before the State Government. The decision of the Assistant Registrar having been upheld by all the forums the petitioner has come up before this Court.2. One of the grounds raised in the petition is that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute directly and his taking cognizance of the dispute without a reference of the dispute being made by the Registrar has vitiate...
Tag this Judgment!State of Orissa Vs. Orissa Polish Works
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC480(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to this court by the Sales Tax Tribunal, under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in allowing the concessional rate of tax on the basis of the declaration Form C, No. 656707, dated 22nd September, 1962, obtained from the purchasing dealers ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was competent to allow additional evidence to prove the correct declaration Form C mentioned above ?The facts leading to this reference may be stated in brief. The opposite party was assessed to sales tax for the quarter ending 30th September, 1962, under Rule 12(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. The opposite party effected inter-State sales and obtained a declaration in Form C from the purchasing dealer. Both the opposite party and the purchasing dealer were registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. The declaration form produced before the Sales Tax Officer cont...
Tag this Judgment!Pitambar Mohapatra Vs. Nilambar Sahu and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ473Ori
B.K. Patra, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to cancel the order dated 19.5.1966 passed by opposite party No. 1, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to take back the petitioner into service and order payment of all back wages from 20.5.1966 till his readmission into service.2. The petitioner was previously employed as a Foreman in the Production-cum-Training Centre, Soro, in the district of Balasore which was under the administrative control of the Director of Industries. That centre was abolished with effect from the 30ib September, 1964. On the very same day, the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis as a Foreman under the the Soro Carpentry Industry Co-operative Society Limited. Annexure 'A' dated 30.9.1964 which is the order of appointment states that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and was liable to be terminated at an...
Tag this Judgment!L.K. Joshi and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC481(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax on 31st of August. 1961 under Rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Rules) framed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment for quarters ending 30th June, 1958 to 30th of June, 1959 was to the tune of Rs. 1,21,500/-. Appeals were preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur, and an application for stay was filed therein. Stay was granted conditionally that if Rs. 36,000/- was paid the balance will be stayed. A revision before the Commissioner against the stay order wag dismissed on 26th of March 1962. Rs. 3,000/-was paid and a further prayer for payment in instalment was made before the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput. On 12th of December, 1962 penalty of Rs. 36,000/-was imposed under Rule 16(2) as the tax was not paid. Revision petitions before the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the orders imposing penalty were dismissed on 22nd of June, 1963. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »