Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1975]35STC275(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The dealer (opposite party) is registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and his certificate of registration is No. GA. I 502. In the assessment years of 1964-65 and 1966-67 he purchased green gram and black gram from another registered dealer without payment of tax on the strength of his registration certificate by furnishing a declaration that the goods were being purchased for resale in Orissa. He converted green gram and black gram into dal and sold them. The assessing officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that dal is a commodity different from green gram and black gram out of which it was produced and that the proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) (hereinafter to be referred to as the proviso) is applicable. In second appeal the Tribunal held that to convert green gram and black gram into dal, all that was necessary is to remove the outer cover. By conversion they do not become two different commod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 40(1974)CLT1119; [1975]35STC195(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The petitioner is engaged in mining limestone at Hatibari Lime Stone Quarry in the district of Sundargarh in the State of Orissa. It is registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and it holds a certificate of registration No. R. L. 206 for quarry only. The certificate of registration authorises the petitioner to mine limestone from the quarry. Under Rules 64 and 70 of the Mines Rules, 1955, the petitioner is to maintain a canteen for supplying articles of food to the employees engaged in the mine. There is also a similar clause in the agreement between the management and the trade union. The petitioner- accordingly runs a canteen which supplies food and drink to the employees working in the mine. The articles of association of the petitioner and the certificate of registration do not mention that the petitioner is to run a canteen. For the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, the petitioner was assessed under the Act. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 40(1974)CLT948; [1975]35STC118(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The assessment years are 1965-66 and 1966-67. The dealer (opposite party) deals in sugarcane crushers. The Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that sugarcane crushers constitute machinery and as such are exigible to sales tax at 7 per cent as per entry No. 60 of taxable goods. The Tribunal in second appeal held that sugarcane crusher should not be treated as machinery. Three small iron rollers fixed close to one another to crush sugarcane are operated not through power but are driven by animals. The mechanism is known as sugarcane crusher. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that sugarcane crushers do not constitute machinery and are liable to tax at 5 per cent. The extra demand of 2 per cent was accordingly reduced. Aggrieved by this order, the Commissioner of Sales Tax (petitioner) asked for a reference which was rejected on 28th March, 1972. The petitioner approached the High Court for a reference. This court called for a statement o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ133Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari and is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 16-1-73 (Annexure 5).2. The State Government referred the following dispute for determination of the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947:Whether the action of the management of M/s. Sundardas D. Hansraj, College Square, Cuttack-3 in terminating the services of SriGokulananda Tripathy with effect from 1-6-71 is legal and/or justified If not, to what relief Sri Tripathy is entitled3. The short facts giving rise to the reference as available from the award and the writ application and the counter-affidavit, may first be taken note of M/s. Sundardas D. Hansraj, a partnership firm, stock and sell diesel and electric pumps for agricultural and industrial purposes. They also deal in other machineries and spare parts. With effect from 18-11-59, the petitioner was appointed by the firm to be in charge of promoting sales. His jobs was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ138Ori
K.B. Panda, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the order (Annexure 6) passed by opposite party No. 1 the State of Orissa refusing to make a reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Annexure 3 wherein he has been found guilty of the charges levelled against him.2. The petitioner was appointed as a typist; in the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. and posted in the office of the Divisional Manager, Jeypore. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant in January, 1967. He continued as such till 13-7-1970 when he was suspended and charge-sheeted on several allegations of misconduct. Breach of trust connivance with ulterior motive, negligence in duties, etc. The explanation of the petitioner in respect of the charges were found not satisfactory. Accordingly one Shri N. Choudhury Sub-divisional Manager, Vijayalaxmi Saw Mill, Umiri wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1975]35STC179(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. The question referred to by the Tribunal under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), runs thus :Whether gudakhu is covered by the expression 'tobacco' as denned in Section 2(c) of the Additional Duties of. Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, which was substituted with effect from 1st July, 1967, by Notification No. 21278-F. dated 6th June, 1967, and is exempted from tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ?2. Facts relevant to the aforesaid question may be stated in short. Opposite party is a registered dealer doing business in the manufacture and sale of gudakhu both inside and outside the State of Orissa. That means it effected not only internal sales in Orissa but sales in the course of inter-State trade. It did not pay tax both under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1956 Act) on the sale of gudakhu for three quarters ending 30th September, 1967, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1976]102ITR641(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Undisputed facts are that the assessee was granted registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the old Act'), till the assessment year 1961-62. It did not file its returns for the accounting year ending in Diwali on October 19, 1961, under Section 139 (1) or (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the new Act'). Best judgment assessment was completed under Section 144 of the new Act for the assessment year 1962-63. The status of the assessee was determined as an ' unregistered firm '. The assessee filed a declaration under Section 184(7) of the new Act in Form No. 12 on June 28, 1962. The due date for filing of return of income was June 30, 1962. No return was, however, filed. The new Act came into force on April 1, 1962. 2. The assessee's stand was that the firm being registered up to and including the assessment year 1961-62, it was required only to file a declaration in Form No. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 40(1974)CLT913; 1975CriLJ116
S. Acharya, J.1. The second party in the Court below has preferred this revision against the order dated 18-10-73 passed by a Magistrate, First Class (Executive) at Rayagada in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C, 1898.2. The impugned order is as follows:The first party is present. The second party is absent on call. Perused the judgment of the Civil Court filed by the first party in M.S. 8/70 and M.A. 6/71 wherein the Civil Court has held that the first paily is the tenant of the disputed plot. Hence the proceeding is dropped. The attached land be released and delivered to the first party by 30-10-73 positively along with the crops. Direct the receiver of crops accordingly.From the impugned order it is quite evident that the Magistrate has dropped the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and at the same time he has ordered the land under attachment to be delivered to the first party, without deciding the fact as to which of the parties was in possession of the said land on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1976]37STC169(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J. 1. The question referred to this court runs thus: Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty under Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act in regard to the quarters ending June and September, 1962, is called for 2. Material facts may be stated in short. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business at Raikia in the District of Phulbani. It was assessed to sales tax under Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), for quarters ending on 31st March, 1962, to 30th September, 1962, and penalties under that section were imposed on it for quarters ending on 30th June, 1962, and 30th September, 1962, on the footing that the petitioner was an unregistered dealer. It had applied for registration as a dealer under the Act on 14/16th February, 1962, but the registration certificate was granted to it on 16th December, 1962. All the taxing authorities including the Tribunal assessed the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ121Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The workmen of the Dandakaranya Project through two registered unions being the Rehabilitation Employees' Union and the Dandakaranya Shramik Sangh are the petitioners challenging the decision of the Union Government conveyed under Annexure 5 that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not apply to any of the departments of the project. According to the petitioners the president of one of the unions was informed in January, 1969, by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar (opposite party No. 4) that the appropriate Government in respect of the project is the State Government and as such for conciliation and claim for other reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act, the machinery of the State Government has to be moved Annexure 1. In May, 1969, the same authority informed the said union.-On being taken up with the higher authorities the matter was re-examined and it has now been decided that since the Dandakaranya Development Project is a departmental un...
Tag this Judgment!