Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1975]35STC270(Orissa)
G.K. Misra, C.J.1. Under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its appellate order passed on 26th December, 1970.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was contravention of the proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) inasmuch as the assessee purchased round logs from registered dealers on the basis of his registration certificate free of tax to resell them in Orissa but instead of doing so he converted them into sized wood and then resold the same ?2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner purchased logs from registered dealers free of tax to the extent of Rs. 29,551.50 for resale in Orissa. The logs were cut into sizes in saw mills and then were resold in Orissa. All the taxing authorities held that by conversion of logs into sized wood the petitioner contravened Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori3
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Phulbani is the petitioner and this application is directed against the appellate order under Section, 64 or the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 1, the owner of a stage carriage vehicle more than ten years old by the time an application for a temporary permit in respect of the vehicle was made to the Transport Authority, Sled an appeal before the opposite party No. 3 aggrieved by the rejection of the application by the petitioner Transport Authority on the ground that the stage carriage in respect of which the temporary permit had been asked for was more than ten years old and, therefore, in terms of Rule 65-C of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules which the Transport Authority had adopted by resolution sometime in 1971, the stage carriage was not entitled to a temporary permit. Before the appellate authority the learned standing counsel appearing for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori1; 40(1974)CLT1053
R.N. Misra, J. 1. The defendant is in appeal against the reversing decree of the learned Additional District judge, Guttack, in a suit for title, permanent injunction and recovery of damages. 2. The disputed property is locatedin the close vicinity of this Court. Admittedly once upon a time the property belonged to the members of the Basil family of Calcutta. On 22-6-1949, some members of that family sold the property under registered sale deed (Ex. 2) to the Orissa Cotton Mills Limited and under another registered sale deed dated 20th of March, 1963--Ext. 1, the Orissa Cotton Mills Limited sold the property to the plaintiff--the Orissa Co-operative Insurance Society, Limited. The plaintiff-Society filed the suit on 28th of February, 1969, for declaration of title, permanent injunction, recovery of damages and other ancillary reliefs. The subject-matter of the suit was described to be a small room measuring about 11 ft. x 7 ft. along with its walls constituted in and forming a part of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori4; 40(1974)CLT1025
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Khon-damals (Opposite party No. 2) passed under Section 60 of the Khondmals Laws Regulation 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation', as also the order of the Collector, Phulbani (Opposite party No. 1), in appeal against the former order. 2. One Sidheswar Mallik a member of the Scheduled Tribes was a joint owner of certain lands along with four co-sharers and obtained transfer of the interest of the co-sharers in his favour. Sidheswar applied for permission to the opposite party No. 2 for alienation of the property now in dispute in favour of the petitioner and permission was accorded in May 1968, vide An-nexure-2. The petitioner claims that the sale took place thereafter and he was put into possession. Opposite parties 3 to 4 were set up by some enemies of the petitioner and applied to the Sub-divisional Officer (opposite party No. 2) under Section 60 of ...
Tag this Judgment!